The fact multiple lower courts ruled against this lady then the SC overturned those rulings shows just how broken this shit is. Courts should have a level of consistency that is not open for debate or the ability to be so subjective.
Many people would have taken their losses in the lower courts and been completely screwed with the wrong ruling.
Courts need to find a way to be less dependent on judges and attorneys or more dependent on simply a fair and simple rule of law.
And if lower courts get it wrong so frequently to be overturned by higher courts, why is there no consequences for the lower courts making a wrong ruling?
The lower courts ruled in accordance with long-standing state laws, the best available precedents (which weren't that good because - amazingly, but that's why it ended up at the Supreme Court - this exact question had never come up before), and the simple fact that under Minnesota law Tyler did not own the property at the time of sale so had no claim to the proceeds of the sale. The federal courts' reluctance to overrule state governments in the absence of any relevant precedent or guidance from SCOTUS for doing so was likely also a factor. This is judicial restraint, not a problem.
As a historical note, Brown vs Topeka BoE, Heller and other second amendment rulings and and most other constitutional interpretation cases have followed the same trajectory: state law challenged in federal court, federal district and circuit courts uphold the state law on the basis of reasonable interpretation of existing precedent, appeal to Supreme Court, Supreme Court issues new rules or clarifies existing rules
This is how it is supposed to work - generally we do not want the lower courts to be inventing new constitutional theories out of thin air.
Fair points indeed but state laws shouldn't even be allowed to exist in the first place if they defy the Constitution. It's frustrating that it takes so much money, time, and stress to make sure that states are acting within the bounds of the Constitution. The Constituiton doesn't need to be interpreted so many times if it is just taken at face value and a little common sense is used. But it takes a team of expensive lawyers most people can't afford just to ensure states are acting within the confines of the Constitution.
Law starts with rights. If law is infringing upon rights then that law is null and void.
Another thing to consider:
politicians
lawyers
judges
All three come from the same source and have studies the same hairsplitting shit the Pharisees and Scribes were known for. And we have read who these people have nailed to the cross. It is these people who found ways around property laws they were bound to keep, like the 10 commandments.
law 1-3 are property laws. Why? God bought them from slavery in Egypt, this includes keep holy the sabbath.
Bering false witness = lying = stealing someone else's property: good name or goods.
Fucking around with someone else's wife = stealing.
Honoring your parents is simply put a property law obligation due to the allodial title parents have on their children, as it is their energy that is transformed into a child.the fruit of the belly. It might be called sweat equity. Sweat in terms of the potential, conception, bearing and having it born. Not to mention the raising and rearing.
It is quite simple. Lack of honor to property leads to immorality. Hairsplitting on these matters leads to immorality.
Logic then dictates that by using the same type of people, the result is the same.
The fact multiple lower courts ruled against this lady then the SC overturned those rulings shows just how broken this shit is. Courts should have a level of consistency that is not open for debate or the ability to be so subjective.
Many people would have taken their losses in the lower courts and been completely screwed with the wrong ruling.
Courts need to find a way to be less dependent on judges and attorneys or more dependent on simply a fair and simple rule of law.
And if lower courts get it wrong so frequently to be overturned by higher courts, why is there no consequences for the lower courts making a wrong ruling?
The lower courts ruled in accordance with long-standing state laws, the best available precedents (which weren't that good because - amazingly, but that's why it ended up at the Supreme Court - this exact question had never come up before), and the simple fact that under Minnesota law Tyler did not own the property at the time of sale so had no claim to the proceeds of the sale. The federal courts' reluctance to overrule state governments in the absence of any relevant precedent or guidance from SCOTUS for doing so was likely also a factor. This is judicial restraint, not a problem.
As a historical note, Brown vs Topeka BoE, Heller and other second amendment rulings and and most other constitutional interpretation cases have followed the same trajectory: state law challenged in federal court, federal district and circuit courts uphold the state law on the basis of reasonable interpretation of existing precedent, appeal to Supreme Court, Supreme Court issues new rules or clarifies existing rules This is how it is supposed to work - generally we do not want the lower courts to be inventing new constitutional theories out of thin air.
Fair points indeed but state laws shouldn't even be allowed to exist in the first place if they defy the Constitution. It's frustrating that it takes so much money, time, and stress to make sure that states are acting within the bounds of the Constitution. The Constituiton doesn't need to be interpreted so many times if it is just taken at face value and a little common sense is used. But it takes a team of expensive lawyers most people can't afford just to ensure states are acting within the confines of the Constitution.
Law starts with rights. If law is infringing upon rights then that law is null and void.
Another thing to consider:
All three come from the same source and have studies the same hairsplitting shit the Pharisees and Scribes were known for. And we have read who these people have nailed to the cross. It is these people who found ways around property laws they were bound to keep, like the 10 commandments.
law 1-3 are property laws. Why? God bought them from slavery in Egypt, this includes keep holy the sabbath. Bering false witness = lying = stealing someone else's property: good name or goods. Fucking around with someone else's wife = stealing. Honoring your parents is simply put a property law obligation due to the allodial title parents have on their children, as it is their energy that is transformed into a child.the fruit of the belly. It might be called sweat equity. Sweat in terms of the potential, conception, bearing and having it born. Not to mention the raising and rearing.
It is quite simple. Lack of honor to property leads to immorality. Hairsplitting on these matters leads to immorality.
Logic then dictates that by using the same type of people, the result is the same.
The solution is quite obvious.