When one searches for the name online though, the fictional female reporter from Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs shows up.
.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150806114836)
Posted on 02/21/2017 4:21:30 PM PST by ColdOne
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Texas can't cut off Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood over secretly recorded videos taken by anti-abortion activists in 2015 that launched Republican efforts across the U.S. to defund the nation's largest abortion provider.
An injunction issued by U.S. District Sam Sparks of Austin comes after he delayed making decision in January and essentially bought Planned Parenthood an extra month in the state's Medicaid program.
Texas is now at least the sixth state where federal courts have kept Planned Parenthood eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services, although a bigger question remains over whether President Donald Trump will federally defund the organization.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The “Judge” is a: (D) or an (R)??
The judicial tyrants strike again.
I thought the ‘power of the purse’ was for the legislative branch? Now judges can rule who must be given tax money?
Maybe the Judge should pay them
Appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991.
When can we start bringing malpractice lawsuits against these so called “judges”.
Time to start ignoring these judges.He made his ruling now let him try to enforce it.It worked back then and it will work now.
Another Bushie judge that needs to be impeached.
At some point, some one is going to have to tell a judge NO, YOU DON’T. It will spawn a “Constitutional crisis,” but at this point it is the only act between us and leftist judicial tyranny.
At some point a Governor needs to tell these judges that there is not constitutional ‘right’ to money... and if he wants Planned Parenthood to get funding... he can write a check himself.
Geez, do the states have any rights to pass their own laws anymore?
That is exactly what it will take. Andrew Jackson would have done this. Will Donald Trump?
TEXAS Pay Attention, the USSC KELO DECISION gives the “State” the absolute authority to SEIZE private Property for “Economic Gain”
SEIZE THE JUDGES HOUSE AND ASSETS TO PAY THE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT.
Let him CHOKE ON IT!!!
It’s about time that some of these judges be asked what part of the Constitution gave them the authority to order spending?
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Take too long ... RICO PP and seize the clinics.
When an attorney puts on a magic black robe he sets policy, you the people are your representatives... hahahahaha, you have no say. Now kneel before your king.
U.S. District Sam Sparks of Austin and alum of University of Texas. ‘Nuff said, he’s a wackadoodle lib no matter what letter is behind his name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.