Can you point out the part of the Constitution that says a district judge has the power to overrule the President and the Congress?
I’ve been studying all night between bong hits and I just can’t seem to find it.
This is in the Constitution, right? Or are you saying that there are rules that are not in the Constitution?
Anyway, just gimme the Article and Section.
And the part where Obama says he’ll ignore any Supreme Court ruling….when exactly did he say that?
Or are you jus’ messing with me dude?
Jus’ makin’ stuff up?[/quote]
Come on, you’re kidding me now right? I find it hard to take you seriously at this point since I never said Obama said he would ignore a Supreme Court ruling so you’re coming across as either duplicitous or truly baked.
Reuters has reported:
“A White House official told reporters the administration planned to continue with implementation of the law.
‘We’ll continue to operate as we have previously and suspect that the states will do the same,” said the senior administration official’.”
It was clear in my thread that I was not calling for Obama’s impeachment, rather, I was highlighting that surely the left would have called for Bush’s had he dared do the same thing.
As for the judicial authority of district courts it is clear to me you are either poorly educated, or think you’re well educated but are not as well as you think you are, or are a dishonest person playing games. It strikes me as the typical gamesmanship of the left. You’ve misstated my statements, tried to play “gotcha” and set it up so I have to go through all the work of a massive civics lesson going back to Marbury v. Madison. You sir, are a joker.
The Constitution did not create district courts. District courts were created by congress. The authority to rule on cases of constitutionality can be found in US Code Title 28 Part IV Chapter 85 section 1331.
Now put down the bong and find where it says congress may ignore a ruling by a district judge that a law is unconstitutional. Go on, do it.
When you’re done you may understand why Bush would be excoriated if instead of stopping the violation where jurisdictionally appropriate and appealing the case, a senior member of his staff said the plan was to appeal but to continue the violation in the meantime despite the lack of any higher court ordering something to the contrary.
Get to work slacker — there are a host of conservative issues and Constitutional principles which have been run over roughshod by district judges all over the country since the 1960s. I am eager to inform the Republican majority in congress that some genius from Piggington’s forum has found a loophole where these judges can just be ignored rather than worrying about appealing to lefty appellate courts like the 9th circuit.
I’m slamming you hard on your tomfoolery because you were trying to be a rude smart-arse in your first post and you, IMO, deserve it. You misread — or misstated — my post and tried to make me look foolish anyway. Moreover, I’m fed up with lefties who always want it both ways. If a district judge makes up law but it goes in the left’s favour conservative politicians are expected to get in line and go along unless they can get a higher court to disagree. But when it goes to the right we’ve got some clown intimating that congress and the president can just ignore the decision. You’re either clueless or of questionable character. Take some solace, however, in the fact you’re far from alone.
And what of the other two judges who have ruled that the healthcare bill *is* constitutional? Would you also then argue that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands if it ceased being implemented?
And what of the other two judges who have ruled that the healthcare bill *is* constitutional? Would you also then argue that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands if it ceased being implemented?
And what of the other two judges who have ruled that the healthcare bill *is* constitutional? Would you also then argue that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands if it ceased being implemented?
And what of the other two judges who have ruled that the healthcare bill *is* constitutional? Would you also then argue that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands if it ceased being implemented?
And what of the other two judges who have ruled that the healthcare bill *is* constitutional? Would you also then argue that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands if it ceased being implemented?
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
Where does it say that the ruling of a District Court (that only covers a portion of the country) overrides a law passed by the Congress and the President?
