|
Purely out of interest, how can a "Supreme Court" have a "higher bench" to overturn it's decisions?
supreme
suːˈpriːm/Submit
adjective
1.
highest in rank or authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Normal case in supreme court work with 2 or 3 judges.
Higher bench (Constitutional Bench) meaning 5 judges is required if you are debate about specific constitiuation ( which is the case now).
Last option is that Govt can overturn the law in parliaent by 2/3 majority
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Purely out of interest, how can a "Supreme Court" have a "higher bench" to overturn it's decisions?
They based their judicial structure on the Dragonball cartoon series.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
This Supreme bench's decision can be overturned by a Supremer bench whose decision itself can be overturned by the Supremest bench which again can be overturned by the President (The Supremestest if you can call it) 
Welcome to the Law.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I care about the subject -- but the legislature shouldn't, either.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well said 
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps one of the most surprising, although perhaps predictable, parts to this is that what is known as 'homosex' in India is very common, just as it is in the West.
This ruling is worthy of the WBC.
India can put a rocket into space yet cannot have empathy and tolerance for those in its land.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
This is the sort of topic you have to be careful about, lest it become soapbox worthy.
Like others in this thread, I don't really care what other people get up to. I care a bit about what they get up to in public, but I think I'm even handed there too.
But the story (as linked) is that there was a Law X.
A *court* decided that the law was Wrong, and said it was invalid.
A higher court said the lower court was wrong to rule on this, and that the lawmakers (ie, polticians) should fix things, not judges.
It sounds quite reasonable to me. The supreme court did not say the law was good, or bad, simply that it was politicians job to fix it, not judges.
Now, you can argue that the laws existence is bad, and it should be repealed, but that's a different point to the one in the linked story.
Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, My issue was that the Suprememe court should have maintained a status quo so that gays cannot be criminally prosecuted and ask Govt to change the law.
When *court* struck down this law 4 years back,many Indians came out of closets. Now they can be terminated from work etc though remote
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd argue it's the court's job to follow the law as literally as possible, and only use judgment when wording is ambigious - and only strike down laws if they contradict a higher authority (ie, a constitution).
If it were also up to me, I'd make it unconstitutional to add a law to the "Book", without repealing two others. I know both views are naive, sadly.
Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
|
|
|
|
|
Iain Clarke, Warrior Programmer wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me
That however, in general, can depend on many factors including but not limited to the government, the legal system and exactly what the law was.
|
|
|
|
|
My mother's hip replacement went out of joint again. She is in a lot of pain, and is currently at the hospital.
This is the second time this has happened.
I guess Murphy's law is in effect here.
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Oooo! That's gotta hurt!
Hopefully they can reseat it without another operation, but send her a ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif) from us anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hear that. Best wishes to your mother.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
Ooowww! That sound bl**dy awful, hope she gets well soon.
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
That's really a terrible situation. I hope she gets well soon. What is the reason it keeps getting dislodged again and again? Is that the initial surgery itself was wrong or something?
|
|
|
|
|
I hope she is better soon.
My mother needs a hip replaced so I hope she does not have that problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I know its not uncommon for hip joints to slip out in the so called rehabilitation timeframe but sounds a bit like maybe the replacement joint isn't quite the right size for the hip socket.
This happened to a cousin who ended up having it replaced all over again. 
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Why most of developers are single :P
|
|
|
|
|
May we see the data you are using to arrive at that conclusion?
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think is might be a sample set of 1?  
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
Because Conjoined Twins are rare: Conjoined Developers only happens when Pair Programming is strictly enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
Intelligent women lurve code monkeys! We're reliable, generally practical and are low maintenance [except for things with lights and beeps].
AFAIK, the majority of the IT professionals I know are married or, with the younger ones, in stable relationships. Griff is married AND in a stable relationship. And a field relationship too.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, no.
You keep horses in a stable.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
