FACT: Despite your attempt to rewrite history
for your lord and master, the despicable Mitt ROmney,
his action violated the Massachusetts Constitution,
which states:
"The power of suspending the laws,
or (suspending) the execution of the laws,
ought never to be exercised
but by the legislature..."
So since you have now been shown
to be a totally disingenuous
by claiming the Court would do otherwise,
it is time for you to go back to DU.
Go back to your beloved Romney and Soros
who have done NOTHING except hurt America.
So your response to the lawyer who actually litigated the court case, and a christian constitutional lawyer active in the field, is to quote a constitutional snippet that has no bearing, which they explained if you bothered to read.
The court did not suspend a law, or suspend the execution of a law. They interpreted the words contained in a law, and ordered that the law be interpreted in that fashion. I disagree with their interpretation, and I presume you do to, but it does no good to argue about something that didn't happen.
Frankly, the legal concept that you are arguing is so ludicrous that almost nobody has actually even commented to refute it, just as people won't waste their time arguing against someone who claims the sky is orange.
Do you think that Jay Sekulow is trying to re-write history? Or are you simply refusing to acknowledge that you are re-writing history to make an argument that doesn't hold water? There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Romney that you shouldn't feel compelled to make erroneous arguments that do nobody any good, and are just foolish.