Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
They are not authorized to do anything other then REVIEW the FINAL DECISION of the USSC. There is a reason why it is called the SUPREME court.
What do the words "further proceedings" mean???
What do the words "further proceedings mean"?
You are keying on the wrong words. The operative phrase is "Consistent with this opinion" and the opinion of the court is the portion of the law we are discussing has been found to be consistent with what are thought to be the right of the State to secure it's borders.
Then explain what the "further proceedings" part of the "further proceedings consistent with this opinion" mean.
The operative phrase is "Consistent with this opinion"
The operative phrase is "further proceedings consistent with this opinion". So what does it mean???
and the opinion of the court is the portion of the law we are discussing has been found to be consistent with what are thought
"thought"???? -- thought by whom???? Only what the USSC thinks is important anymore.
to be the right of the State to secure it's borders.
You are completely mistaken. The USSC by this decision just said that the States have no such right, that only the Federales have the right to secure a state's border, or in this case, the right to not secure if it chooses.
Further proceedings is a reference to any challenges forthcoming to this part of the law. The 9th Circuit can no longer rule on this part of the law because the USSC has the final say. However if another suit is brought using a different argument they can hear it and rule on the new action.
Notice only the part of the AZ law which was upheld is being sent to the 9th Circuit for review? That is simply because in the other three parts of the law which the USSC struck down there was no dissent with the 9th Circuits decision so no need for them to have to review the USSC decision.
AZ does have the right to secure it’s own borders but if the Fed gov’t refuses to do that which it is Constitutionally bound to do there is no remedy save throwing the current government out in Nov
Ginsberg and Roberts have not written an opinion since May 21. That means they are probably the authors of the Majority opinion and the Dissenting opinion. If that is the case they are probably on different sides of the issue.
I would suspect that makes Mr. Tapper’s claim improbable.
We will know for sure shortly.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/25/oh-my-is-ginsburg-writing-the-main-obamacare-dissent/
Ginsberg and Roberts have not written an opinion since May 21. That means they are probably the authors of the Majority opinion and the Dissenting opinion. If that is the case they are probably on different sides of the issue.
I would suspect that makes Mr. Tapper’s claim improbable.
We will know for sure shortly.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/25/oh-my-is-ginsburg-writing-the-main-obamacare-dissent/
Ginsberg and Roberts have not written an opinion since May 21. That means they are probably the authors of the Majority opinion and the Dissenting opinion. If that is the case they are probably on different sides of the issue.
I would suspect that makes Mr. Tapper’s claim improbable.
We will know for sure shortly.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/25/oh-my-is-ginsburg-writing-the-main-obamacare-dissent/
Looks like you were right.
Hate that when it happens.
I guess Jake Tapper has pretty good sources. The Democrat-appointed members of the court don’t stray. Those appointed by the GOP frequently do (Stephens, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts).
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.