OT: Some Constitutional trivia

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]Article 3 […][/quote]

All that says is that there will be courts.

Here’s my question again. Read carefully:

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?

Keep reading, I’m sure you’ll find it…

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[patb]

[quote=walterwhite]

I’m not sure, but i think a little old district court decision doesn’t bind the whole u.s of a., at least that’s the way things generally work, the districts are divided up and what some wacko judge (not that this judge was a wacko, or indeed that any federal judges are necessarily wackos) in some far-flung distrcit doesn’t necessarily bind us way over here (where our judges aren’t necessarily any better, just different)..

[/quote]
District court rulings don’t even bind other judges in the district. It only matters to the case at hand.

Judges help set precedent, and judges will give weight to other judges rulings.

But Until an appellate court rules it’s not binding in the district, it’s why california was always more friendly to drug cases and defendants then texas, and the supremes bind the districuts.

[patb]

[quote=walterwhite]

I’m not sure, but i think a little old district court decision doesn’t bind the whole u.s of a., at least that’s the way things generally work, the districts are divided up and what some wacko judge (not that this judge was a wacko, or indeed that any federal judges are necessarily wackos) in some far-flung distrcit doesn’t necessarily bind us way over here (where our judges aren’t necessarily any better, just different)..

[/quote]
District court rulings don’t even bind other judges in the district. It only matters to the case at hand.

Judges help set precedent, and judges will give weight to other judges rulings.

But Until an appellate court rules it’s not binding in the district, it’s why california was always more friendly to drug cases and defendants then texas, and the supremes bind the districuts.

[patb]

[quote=walterwhite]

I’m not sure, but i think a little old district court decision doesn’t bind the whole u.s of a., at least that’s the way things generally work, the districts are divided up and what some wacko judge (not that this judge was a wacko, or indeed that any federal judges are necessarily wackos) in some far-flung distrcit doesn’t necessarily bind us way over here (where our judges aren’t necessarily any better, just different)..

[/quote]
District court rulings don’t even bind other judges in the district. It only matters to the case at hand.

Judges help set precedent, and judges will give weight to other judges rulings.

But Until an appellate court rules it’s not binding in the district, it’s why california was always more friendly to drug cases and defendants then texas, and the supremes bind the districuts.

[patb]

[quote=walterwhite]

I’m not sure, but i think a little old district court decision doesn’t bind the whole u.s of a., at least that’s the way things generally work, the districts are divided up and what some wacko judge (not that this judge was a wacko, or indeed that any federal judges are necessarily wackos) in some far-flung distrcit doesn’t necessarily bind us way over here (where our judges aren’t necessarily any better, just different)..

[/quote]
District court rulings don’t even bind other judges in the district. It only matters to the case at hand.

Judges help set precedent, and judges will give weight to other judges rulings.

But Until an appellate court rules it’s not binding in the district, it’s why california was always more friendly to drug cases and defendants then texas, and the supremes bind the districuts.

[patb]

[quote=walterwhite]

I’m not sure, but i think a little old district court decision doesn’t bind the whole u.s of a., at least that’s the way things generally work, the districts are divided up and what some wacko judge (not that this judge was a wacko, or indeed that any federal judges are necessarily wackos) in some far-flung distrcit doesn’t necessarily bind us way over here (where our judges aren’t necessarily any better, just different)..

[/quote]
District court rulings don’t even bind other judges in the district. It only matters to the case at hand.

Judges help set precedent, and judges will give weight to other judges rulings.

But Until an appellate court rules it’s not binding in the district, it’s why california was always more friendly to drug cases and defendants then texas, and the supremes bind the districuts.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.

[Author]

Posts