[antiRepublicrat]

prompted a strong statement from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said that the court violated the “clear intent of Congress,”

Then I guess Congress shouldn't have watered-down the bill before passage. It did originally state that the court "shall" grant a preliminary injunction. It instead left it up to the court's discretion under existing laws.

This law didn't change a thing. All it did was give the case a chance under the federal courts using the same set of laws that had already led to decisions that no rights have been violated.

Don't blame the courts, blame the legislators.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

This law didn't change a thing. All it did was give the case a chance under the federal courts using the same set of laws that had already led to decisions that no rights have been violated. Don't blame the courts, blame the legislators.

It is not the fault of legislators in the majority. The law was good enough. ANY law would have been dismissed by the courts. The courts from bottom to top are together on this to flaunt the naked power they have to legislate and enforce and show Congress and the President to be irrelevant.

You need 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House to amend the Constitution and strip the court of its usurped authority, making enforcement by the President and governors explicitly optional, stripping the court generally of the power of mandamus and not allowing any decisions at all on social issues.