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

'This bill will restore respect for the system of government outlined in the Constitution'
1 posted on 09/12/2019 10:54:52 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: MarvinStinson

“A district court in California should not be given sweeping authority to issue a ruling—let alone on dubious legal reasoning—striking down policy from a duly elected President.”


2 posted on 09/12/2019 10:55:29 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Good.


4 posted on 09/12/2019 10:56:41 AM PDT by Dr. Zzyzx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Is there a statute that says courts havew nationwide jurisdiction? Why not just ignore it?


5 posted on 09/12/2019 10:57:55 AM PDT by brianr10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Barr has been turning the wheels to make this happen. The idea that one STATE COURT can rule for all States is absurd.


6 posted on 09/12/2019 10:58:48 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Now it just needs to get through the House and matched with a similar Senate bill, thence to The Donald’s desk


7 posted on 09/12/2019 10:58:53 AM PDT by grobdriver (BUILD KATE'S WALL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Doubt this would get through he democrat controlled House, but try it.


8 posted on 09/12/2019 10:59:57 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Right arm! Right arm!


9 posted on 09/12/2019 11:03:35 AM PDT by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

A better approach, IMO, would be to hold judges, whose rulings are overturned, to much tighter scrutiny, and level hefty penalties for abuse.
At minimum, a three strikes rule, where if overturned 3 times by a higher court, they’re out, done being a judge, anywhere.


11 posted on 09/12/2019 11:04:27 AM PDT by Fireone (Build the gallows first, then the wall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

This should be addressed by SCOTUS. There is no Constitutional warrant for inferior courts to enjoin the whole country.


12 posted on 09/12/2019 11:04:34 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

I’m sick of these traitorous commie judges.
The House needs to revert to GOP control next year or everything DJT proposes will be stonewalled.


14 posted on 09/12/2019 11:06:36 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Don’t need a bill, just need the Supreme Court to end it... Not against the bill, but the Supreme Court itself should have shut this crap down when it started 50 years ago.


15 posted on 09/12/2019 11:07:05 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

There certainly seems to be an imbalance of power with the power in favor of the judiciary. Any single, lower level judge can overrule a decision by the POTUS. There are hundreds of lower level judges each with their own political preferences.


16 posted on 09/12/2019 11:07:46 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

These rulings all should have been ignored. These districts courts do not have authority over the entire country. No law is needed, ignore their rulings. Proposing legislation only works to give the appearance that these rulings are legitimate, they aren’t.


17 posted on 09/12/2019 11:09:29 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson
Injunction:

"An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction." Wikipedia

18 posted on 09/12/2019 11:10:02 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

Since when should a pipsqueak of a Judge have so much power? He should be charged with abuse of authority and over-reaching.


20 posted on 09/12/2019 11:15:04 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Monthly Donors Rock!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

As a practical matter, the U.S. Supreme Court did this yesterday.


22 posted on 09/12/2019 11:16:34 AM PDT by WASCWatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

——to bad somebody didn’t think of doing this when the Repubs had control of the House-—it could have passed easily then-—

-—now it is pointless posturing-—


27 posted on 09/12/2019 11:33:56 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the meda or government sayabout firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

I hought the supreme court already ruled that district courts couldn’t order nationwide injunctions


30 posted on 09/12/2019 11:39:03 AM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

‘This bill will restore respect for the system of government outlined in the Constitution’


That would also be the case if the government itself didn’t trample on the Constitution to the detriment of the very people whose rights it was created to protect.

Oh, and it would also be the case if high officials, elected, apppointed or promoted from within the bureaucracy, were subject to the same laws - and actually prosecuted when there is a clear case to be made of a possible violation thereof - instead of making it look abundantly clear that there are two standards of justice in our society.

Other than that, I’m certainly in favor of this bill. Unelected judges on the lowest federal level do not have the Constitutional authority to exercise their power outside of their own court’s jurisdiction. Any first year law student could tell you that.


35 posted on 09/12/2019 11:51:41 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MarvinStinson

The House Democrats need to be reminded that Trump is appointing so many conservative judges that, if in the future roles are reversed, they would be glad they voted yes on this bill.


39 posted on 09/12/2019 11:59:45 AM PDT by Rusty0604 (2020 four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 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