Posted on 10/16/2010 8:48:12 PM PDT by Nachum
He’s absolutely right. That slap at the USSC was one of the most disgraceful moments in modern presidential history.
Bill and Hillary have the same effect as well. And let us not forget that worthless old fossil Jimmy Carter.
“not true” = “YOU LIE!”
“Hopefully the other sitting justices will again show some spine given Alito’s stand.”
Dream on. You can count on four who will likely NOT boycott it (the latest two definitely will be there with bells on).
More and more I dread the next critically important issues/cases that will soon come before the SCOTUS, due to the radical members that BHO has added and another possible replacement as well.
WONDERFUL NEWS!
Didn’t the whole supreme court boycott one of Clintons SOTU speeches....
SOTU addresses are just circus events. We’re supposed to watch them and fall in love with the president in exchange for all these goodies (our and our grandchildrens tax dollars) he’s going to give us. Justices shouldn’t have to play.
Amen brother.
The same goes for Bill, Hillary and Jimmy.
Great! Why should he go?
Funny, I never heard about this. Why did they boycott back then?
If several justices boycott, the ones present underscore Alito’s point that the speech is political. Suppose only Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan showed up? The MSM might spin it as “look at the intolerant conservatives who aren’t there!” But surely it would cause disrepect for the institution to rise. Now if he attacked the SCOTUS during the speech, and the liberal justices nodded approvingly, that would underscore the point that politics has trumped law at SCOTUS. With two of them nominated by Obama himself, it would look like a court-packing scheme without the packing.
Generally true, but when one party to a contract acts grossly in violation thereof, it may be necessary for a court to craft remedies beyond anything the contract explicitly specifies.
For example, if a court wrongfully declares a statute to be unconstitutional, and as a consequence of that decision, some people violate the statute, the proper action for a future court would be to announce that (1) the statute was constitutional after all, but (2) anyone who violated the statute between the time of the earlier decision and the present one would be immune from prosecution. The earlier court had no real authority to exempt anyone from prosecution, but for the later court to retroactively yank the exemption the former court had no authority to give would cause an even greater harm.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.