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


1 posted on 10/07/2010 2:56:30 PM PDT by speciallybland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: speciallybland

DETROIT..............PAHLEEEEEEZE. Everyone knows this is going to the Supremes.


2 posted on 10/07/2010 2:59:01 PM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=240

The Honorable George C. Steeh was appointed United States District Judge in 1998 by President Clinton.....

3 posted on 10/07/2010 2:59:10 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

Take it to SCOTUS they’ll overturn the Detroit Dweeb.


4 posted on 10/07/2010 3:01:24 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

“Reasonable,” says the judge? There is nothing reasonable about ObamaCare.


6 posted on 10/07/2010 3:03:35 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland
Judge Steeh is a fruitcake Fur Shur. Else he'd noticed that with the addition of more young people to the insured rolls the price is going up for everybody.

Yet, he said "....... lawmakers intended to lower the overall cost of health insurance by requiring participation."

The puke hasn't got beyond the edge of the Democrat party talking points when he says that.

Time for the new Congress to fund a new office for the judge in the Upper Peninsula in an unheated log cabin.

7 posted on 10/07/2010 3:03:45 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

I hope Obamacare is overturned by the courts, but realistically, do you think it will be? Will Anthony Kennedy really rule against it?


9 posted on 10/07/2010 3:05:15 PM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

How’d it end up in Detroit?


11 posted on 10/07/2010 3:07:50 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

Don’t believe the judge was asked to rule on the cost/benefit ratio of the legislation but on the constitutionality of it. It doesn’t matter if the law would make everyone in the nation millionaires and good looking, nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the law. The question was, can the federal government force anyone to purchase a product endorsed by the government? Think his ruling will be tossed at the first chance.


12 posted on 10/07/2010 3:08:16 PM PDT by engrpat (A village in Kenya is missing their idiot...lets send him back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

Wow!

1,000,000 more people just decided to crawl over broken glass to vote Democrats out.

Thanks Detroit!

Should have let the Canadians keep the damn place in 1812.


15 posted on 10/07/2010 3:11:21 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland
The law center, the plaintiff in the Michigan case along with four uninsured individuals, argued before Steeh that the health-care statute creates a tax, in the form of compulsory insurance, that Congress lacks the power to enact.

Didn't the government recently change its stance on this and argue that Congress does have the power to enact this law because it is a tax?

17 posted on 10/07/2010 3:13:19 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

On the unanimous recommendation of Senators Carl Levin and William Riegle, Jr., Steeh was nominated by President Bill Clinton on September 24, 1997

18 posted on 10/07/2010 3:13:54 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

I still belive that the best chance is the case that was brought by the group of States. This was a small case brought up by a Christian Group.


19 posted on 10/07/2010 3:15:01 PM PDT by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

” .. reasonable ... “

???? I thought the question to be answered was: “Is it legal and Constitutional?”


20 posted on 10/07/2010 3:16:56 PM PDT by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

From Detroit, one of America’s DEAD CITIES.

Well this is going on to the SUPREMES!


24 posted on 10/07/2010 3:19:55 PM PDT by Biggirl (GO UCONN FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!! :)=^..^=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

If memory serves, FDR called Social Security insurance however his DOJ argued it as proper exercising of the taxing power provision in the Constitution and won.

Since then (1937 or 1938) it seems the Federal governments favorite power is the Commerce Clause. Which theoretically can be expanded to the absurd.

With a possible 4-4 split on the USSC on a majority of issues I wonder who in many cases would be the swing vote. It has in prior years not always rested upon the same Justice.

Maybe its me but I don’t believe that the Framers of the Constitution, who never meant the Constitution as a crutch for an expansive government and a blank check for achieving it. Nor did they truly intended that the Constitution be a tax-devouring engine to met Federal needs.


27 posted on 10/07/2010 3:21:25 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

Is there a process for removing these black robed tyrants or do we just have to cross our fingers and hope they die durning a conservative administration?


29 posted on 10/07/2010 3:22:54 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

A federal judge ruled schools can expel students, like Julea Ward, who believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University was dismissed.

“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2010/07/court-university-can-expel-student-who-opposes-homosexuality.html#more


30 posted on 10/07/2010 3:23:34 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

When it comes time for the citizens to administer the tar and feathers, it’s gonna be hard deciding who gets it first, judges or politicians.


31 posted on 10/07/2010 3:25:10 PM PDT by OB1kNOb (Obama: I hate Presidenting. Everyone treats me like a dog. Doctor: Sorry to hear it, now roll over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

The battle is over in Michigan.

The video game industry registered another big court victory today as a federal judge ruled Michigan’s video game law unconstitutional and reaffirmed that “video games are a form of creative expression that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. They contain original artwork, graphics, music, storylines, and characters similar to movies and television shows, both of which are considered protected free speech.”

As reported by GamePolitics last November, Judge George Caram Steeh had previously issued a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. At a March 22nd hearing, final arguments were presented. Judge Steeh’s decision was provided to lawyers for both sides on Friday. Industry reaction was swift.

“Judge Steeh’s ruling represents a sweeping rejection of the state’s claims regarding the harmful effects of violent video games and we will move immediately for reimbursement of the substantial legal fees incurred in this court fight which the state could have, and should have, never triggered,” said ESA president Douglas Lowenstein.

Judge Steeh likewise dismissed Michigan’s claim that the interactive nature of video games somehow limited their First Amendment protections.

“The interactive, or functional aspect, in video games can be said to enhance the expressive elements even more than other media by drawing the player closer to the characters and becoming more involved in the plot of the game than by simply watching a movie or television show,” Judge Steeh wrote. “It would be impossible to separate the functional aspects of a video game from the expressive, inasmuch as they are so closely intertwined and dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience.”

Nor was the jurist kind to research submitted to support the law.

http://tinyurl.com/2flnpk7


32 posted on 10/07/2010 3:27:33 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: speciallybland

The Honorable George C. Steeh...
...was appointed United States District Judge in 1998 by President Clinton...
...President of the Arab American Bar Association...
-
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=240
-


36 posted on 10/07/2010 3:32:05 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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