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

To: ClintonBeGone

"That was the whole point behind tonight's legislation - TO GIVE THEM THAT RIGHT TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT."

Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.


246 posted on 03/20/2005 11:28:18 PM PST by flaglady47 (O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: flaglady47

"Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't. "


You know this how? WHO gives 'rights', wow lady and you worry about protecting your system.


251 posted on 03/20/2005 11:30:05 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47

That is what I am afraid of...seems too many judges have their pants in a wad these days. Hopefully, there are one or two who understand the situation and can be reasonable.


253 posted on 03/20/2005 11:30:52 PM PST by whadizit (an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47
Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.

That's what I'm thinking, too. But we're not supposed to be allowed to think things like that. It's doubleplusungood.

254 posted on 03/20/2005 11:30:54 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47
Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.

Why are you so sure about that? Unless you know the actual federal judge involved and have received that specific information from him or her, you cannot make that statement with any confidence.

257 posted on 03/20/2005 11:31:21 PM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47
Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.

Don't be silly. They may not rule the way we want, but they can't deny someone standing if they've met the statutory requirements provided by congress.

260 posted on 03/20/2005 11:32:28 PM PST by ClintonBeGone (In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47
And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.

Congress has acted by its constitutional authority to determine federal lower court jurisdiction. Yes. The judicial clowns have a constitutional duty to accept the case. If they refuse to do so, Congress can (and will) impeach and remove the judges involved.

263 posted on 03/20/2005 11:33:33 PM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: flaglady47; pc93; Canadian Outrage

> Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.

Events yesterday have somewhat undermined your premise. Whether or not they don't want the legislature imposing such a right (for an individual or the people), Congress has the constitutional mandate to oversee the federal court system below the U.S. Supreme Court per Article I, section 8, paragraphs 9 and 18, and Article III, section 1.
'Course Judge Whittemore may dismiss the Schindlers' suit, but that won't have any affect on the congressional subpoenas ordering HINO, Terri, attending hospice physicians and several hospice staff to appear on 3/25 and 3/28 before two committees. The subpoenas require that the summoned witnesses be protected from injury or harm. If this judge waits too long to issue his decision, he, too, will be (technically) guilty of contempt of congress.


482 posted on 03/22/2005 2:10:07 AM PST by l.tecolote (doing what I can from California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | 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