I know this is going to come as a shock to you but multiple courts have looked at this. Also probably a shocker to you is the fact that not all those who opposed this were automatically nominated by Democrats. Article III is clear. Although we shouldn't even be arguing the US Constitution since it was not the national government's business in the first place, as many actual conservatives have pointed out time and again.
That's your best [Projected] line? What kind of murderously-cynical insanity is that?
Hey I'm not the one advocating practically overthrowing all rule of law to get my way. You want mob rule? Go live in some third world nation and surround yourself with your own personal army. The President and Congress stepped WAY over the line on this one, and as predicted by many, to no avail. That wasn't good enough apparently, so we'll just ignore the rule of law from the judges they handed it to as well.
If we as a Nation will not put the protection of the life of the weakest and most vulnerable among us ahead of blind obedience to the more-than-seven-decades-long-activist-judges-perpetrated-corruption, to and by personal whim and totalitarian ideology, of United States Law then our nation is doomed and with it the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization we have long vanguarded and must forever guard.
Another shocker. It's not 'blind obedience to the more-than-seven-decades-long-activist-judges-perpetrated-corruption'. It's called the Constitution of these United States. I would suggest you read Federalist #45. Madison is quite clear where this power lies. Scalia also agreed. But don't let that stop your quest there, Ahab.
Hitler used the courts the same way. The way you advocate. Stalin used the courts the same way. The way you advocate. Mao used the courts the same way. -- [And his self-annointed, self-appointed and self-perpetuation heirs still do!] The way you advocate.
Let's see someone using the court system to try to force their view of what the decision should be instead of what the court actually decided. Picking multiple courts if necessary. I don't believe that's me advocating that.
Frankly I'm wondering if the lot of you even know what you're talking about anymore. Because you're not using Constitutional arguments, reason, or anything that resembles rational thought anymore.
<< The President and Congress stepped WAY over the line on this one ... >>
What absolute bloody rubbish.
Show me a single section, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word in the United states Constitution that grants supremicy to courts that -- but for the supreme court [Which has now given itself more tyrannical powers than George III was capable of even delusionally fantasizing to himself!] -- exist only by the authority of the Congress!
Our Constitution begins "We The People," not "they the bloody courts!"
<< Frankly I'm wondering if the lot of you even know what you're talking about anymore. Because you're not using Constitutional arguments, reason, or anything that resembles rational thought anymore. >>
Projecting, again?
Not using Constitutional arguments, reason, or anything that resembles rational thought anymore has long been the preserve of the nation's courts.
Perhaps its time we stopped kowtowing to their scurrilous lawlessness -- and took the same approach?