Posted on 05/13/2019 2:21:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Gotta keep killin’ those babies..
we desperately need to Drain the Judicial Swamp, not just the Congressional and Bureaucrappic Swamps
PDJT is appointing some new judges...but we are still stuck with the basturds who write orders like...this?
The whole process is evil but how the aborted baby is disposed of is inhuman. The disposal medical waste companies should be shut down.
Didn’t we already wage a war - brother against brother - on the issue of States’ Rights?
Or did that go away when they revised American History.
If some vigilante group wanted to have an effect on our country they should start with the judges. It is because of “men” like this guy McKinley that our country cannot rid itself of the stigma of the Clinton and Obola Administrations.
Senate only approved two judges last week. They need to pick up the pace.
Yes, until new laws or a Scotus decision, we will get more dead babies.
Bingo !
Leftists cannot give up on claiming people as property ....
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley needs to be on the list of people who should be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to publicly hang for genocidal murder, crimes against humanity, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
God, almighty....
Another murderous enemy islamist dhimmicrat.
So you can’t have gruesome executions and they must be humane and companies will prevent their tools and pharmaceuticals from being used for even humane executions and leftists applaud - but it’s a LEGAL RIGHT to rip arms off of babies in the womb coz they ain’t real...
You’d expect nothing less from a Clintoon appointee,, 1995..
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/mckinley-joseph-h-jr
ImVho, the baby-killers & the activist/LEFTIST judges that allow their murders of the innocent to continue unabated will have “a seat really near the fire, that burns eternally”, when they are JUDGED for their sins.
Yours, TMN78247
“Didn’t we already wage a war - brother against brother - on the issue of States’ Rights?”
You are correct. Prior to our Civil War people used to say “The United States are” referring to plural states. After that war the phrase became “The United States is” referring to single Federal power.
This gives a good indication as to which point of view on States Rights prevailed in that conflict.
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Where is it in the constitution that takes away state’s say so on abortion? Oh yea, almost missed that. Framer’s intent! Just like legalizing homosexuality nationwide. We are very close to dropping “United States” from our title. So much for that pesky constitution thingy.
Today the outrage and the shame is obscured behind Game of Thrones, iPads, McFood, Facebook, and Twitter. We have tens of millions of guns, and in theory we could rise up. However society is structured differently now, and any uprising would be doomed to failure unless it were so spontaneous and widespread that the goons would be unable to react.
People have soft lives now with credit cards and lots of stuff. Are they going to sacrifice all that for the sake of innocents? Is that a dumb question?
The Democrat craves a mutilated baby.
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley is another judical activist judge appointed by none other than Bill Clinton. What more could you expect from him?
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.