Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spunky
I don't understand all the legalize, but why would he have had to do this?

Because the courts aren't supposed to reach beyond the evidence presented to them. The burden, once that law was passed, was squarely on Gibbs. We get snarky when Justice Kennedy starts citing foreign law. In this case, the courts stayed within the boundaries of the law, and now we're PO'd at them because they didn't take an activist posture.

Didn't the congress file it with the courts asking to do a de novo?

Congress filed no case. They merely passed a law.

88 posted on 03/31/2005 3:54:32 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah

I am with you -- I cannot believe what I have witnessed on here with the attacks on the Federal Judiciary. They were not activist judges which is what I want in judges. These Federal Judges ruled on the law not emotion which is what I thought conservatives wanted from our Federal Judges. Guess I was wrong. Conservatives on here only want judges to Rule on the Law when they rule the way they want them to. If it is against what they want, they want activist judges.

Frankly, I am disgusted with the hypocricy I am seeing.


182 posted on 03/31/2005 4:59:29 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson