Ravenswood

SamCogar wrote:The sworn duty of Judges and Justices are to interpret the original intent of the Law and apply said when rendering their decision, ...... not to re-write the Law to what they want it to read ...... nor to create new Laws and Statutes (Legislate from the Bench) to appease their own personal biases.

4-5. Oath or affirmation to support the constitution.
Every person elected or appointed to any office, before proceeding to exercise the authority, or discharge the duties thereof, shall make oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his said office to the best of his skill and judgment; and no other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification, unless herein otherwise provided.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:The sworn duty of Judges and Justices are to interpret the original intent of the Law and apply said when rendering their decision, ...... not to re-write the Law to what they want it to read ...... nor to create new Laws and Statutes (Legislate from the Bench) to appease their own personal biases.

Says who? It would be interesting to know where you might have pulled that from, Sam.

In West Virginia:

4-5. Oath or affirmation to support the constitution.
Every person elected or appointed to any office, before proceeding to exercise the authority, or discharge the duties thereof, shall make oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his said office to the best of his skill and judgment; and no other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification, unless herein otherwise provided.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm

CHAPTER 51. COURTS AND THEIR OFFICERS.
ARTICLE 1A. UNIFORM CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW ACT.

§51-1A-8. Procedures.
After the supreme court of appeals of West Virginia has accepted a certified question, proceedings are governed by the rules and statutes of this state governing briefs, arguments and other appellate procedures. Procedures for certification from this state to a receiving court shall be those provided in the rules and statutes of the receiving forum.

§51-1A-9. Opinion.
The supreme court of appeals of West Virginia shall state in a written opinion the law answering the certified question and send a copy of the opinion to the certifying court, to counsel of record and to unrepresented parties.

Stephanie wrote:I don't see where I have changed my position on this issue. I agree with the WVSC decision which simply reiterates what is in the code.

This is a big deal because it is high school football and my West Virginians take high school football far too seriously. If this had happened in high school volleyball we wouldn't be discussing it.

Carrie Webster made a mistake. I doubt it will be her last. You have a problem with being on the losing side of anything, Aaron. I don't feel any great victory when it comes to this issue other than my belief from the beginning the courts should not be involved in this matter at all because WV code clearly gives all the power in these matters to the SSAC. That is the law.

What I am completely unfamiliar with is the earlier case you brought up. I don't know what it was about, or why the court intervened. I'm taking your word for it that the cases are very similar, but I really don't know that to be true. It doesn't matter anyway. The WVSC has ruled and that's it.

The one thing I don't understand is why the rules prohibit officials from reviewing video of events. That needs to change, imho.

Stephanie wrote:I don't feel any great victory when it comes to this issue other than my belief from the beginning the courts should not be involved in this matter at all because WV code clearly gives all the power in these matters to the SSAC. That is the law.

§29A-4-1. Declaratory rulings by agencies.

On petition of any interested person, an agency may issue a declaratory ruling with respect to the applicability to any person, property or state of facts of any rule or statute enforceable by it. A declaratory ruling, if issued after argument and stated to be binding, is binding between the agency and the petitioner on the state of facts alleged, unless it is altered or set aside by a court, but it shall not be binding on any other person. Such ruling is subject to review before the court and in the manner hereinafter provided for the review of orders or decisions in contested cases. Each agency may prescribe by rule the form for such petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration and disposition.

§29A-4-2. Declaratory judgment on validity of rule.
(a) Any person, except the agency promulgating the rule, may have the validity of any rule determined by instituting an action for a declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Kanawha county, West Virginia, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff or plaintiffs. The agency shall be made a party to the proceeding. The declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the plaintiff or plaintiffs has or have first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.

(b) The court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that the rule violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency or was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures or is arbitrary or capricious, or that, in the case of a rule adopted pursuant to section five, article three of this chapter, action under said section five was not justified.

Stephanie wrote:I did read Webster's decision, but not the others.

You're pissing in the wind, Aaron. Webster is an inexperienced judge who made a rookie mistake which was overturned by more experienced judges.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:The sworn duty of Judges and Justices are to interpret the original intent of the Law and apply said when rendering their decision, ...... not to re-write the Law to what they want it to read ...... nor to create new Laws and Statutes (Legislate from the Bench) to appease their own personal biases.

Says who? It would be interesting to know where you might have pulled that from, Sam.

In West Virginia:

4-5. Oath or affirmation to support the constitution.
Every person elected or appointed to any office, before proceeding to exercise the authority, or discharge the duties thereof, shall make oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his said office to the best of his skill and judgment; and no other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification, unless herein otherwise provided.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm

Well now, herein otherwise provided is this for one thing.

CHAPTER 51. COURTS AND THEIR OFFICERS.
ARTICLE 1A. UNIFORM CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW ACT.

§51-1A-8. Procedures.
After the supreme court of appeals of West Virginia has accepted a certified question, proceedings are governed by the rules and statutes of this state governing briefs, arguments and other appellate procedures. Procedures for certification from this state to a receiving court shall be those provided in the rules and statutes of the receiving forum.

§51-1A-9. Opinion.
The supreme court of appeals of West Virginia shall state in a written opinion the law answering the certified question and send a copy of the opinion to the certifying court, to counsel of record and to unrepresented parties.

Now we will await your weazelworded reply to that.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I did read Webster's decision, but not the others.

You're pissing in the wind, Aaron. Webster is an inexperienced judge who made a rookie mistake which was overturned by more experienced judges.

It hit me while I was in the shower. All along, this hasn't been about this case or football (well maybe a little as Kate was in the band and I know how band geeks and football players get along) or about the WVSSAC, case law, the WV Code or anything else.

What your response boils down to is that you were an ardant supporter of Dan Greer of whom Carrie Webster defeated in the last election. This is all politics for you, nothing more then sour grapes and has nothing to do with the facts.

No matter what truth I show you, you're not going to change your mind because it was Webster who made the decision and not Greer.

The things a hot shower will bring to the surface, huh...

Aaron wrote:And in the time you read that, you could have come up with a logical reason as to why you say courts cannot intercede in the inner workings of the SSAC but yet that is exactly what they did in the Hamilton Case.

But hey, it’s just football. And the toll road is just transportation. And out current Governor defying the state Constitution is just politics. They all go hand in hand in West Virginia and if you can't complain about one, what's the use to complain about any of them.

Or do you select which miscarriages of justice you protest?