Posted on 06/08/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by DCBryan1
To: kcvl
Has a sitting President ever refused to follow a ruling by SCOTUS?
127 posted on Monday, June 08, 2009 5:27:12 PM by Protect the Bill of Rights
Andrew Jackson did; I think on moving the Cherokees to what later became Oklahoma
Ginsberg is lib, but she has integrity, in my opinion. My guess is that she decided that the matter was of sufficient importance that all 9 Justices should vote on whether to hear it, even if she will vote No.
The real question is WHY is Ginsburg of all the justices out front on this?
Is the court using Ruthie and her ‘leftism’ to deter critism in getting involved in this issue?
I’m so excited too. I’ve been on pins and needles all afternoon checking FR every 15 min for news on this. Then I heard about the 2 Dem Senators defecting in NY and I had to do a jig around my living room-lol
My understanding of the definition of ‘judicial activist’ rulings is based on this perception.
If a ruling accurately adheres to the U.S. Constitution and legal precedence, then it is not activist.
If a ruling does not accurately adhere to the U.S. Constitution and legal precedence, then it must have employed judicial activism to in effect legislate from the bench. That is what I term judicial activism.
If someone views a court that takes action to overturn a ruling as an activist move, I could agree that this could be termed an activist ruling. It still wouldn’t be what I would term a judicial activist ruling.
Judicial activist rulings bring in other considerations like, correcting a previous unfairness or what would be socially more acceptable, or some other variant that wasn’t really prescribed by law.
This would be legislating from the bench, and would clearly be defined as judicial activism.
Do you see this differently?
The justice can ask the entire panel of judges to take up the case.
Souter unfortunately got to make the initial decision on Emanate Domain.
The US is divided into 9 sections and each SC judge has jurisdiction over 1 section. Ginsburg happened to have NY where this was filed.
Agreed. I think the good thing here is that people will be forced to have a dialogue about what is constitutional.
The statement by the White House lawyer seems to me to equate to, “An economic crisis trumps the law.”
Leftists screamed at the Patriot Act as illegal and in essence, the previous administration said, “Safety of the people trumps privacy rights.”
I’ll admit that I’m not a constitutional lawyer and maybe there are some on this board. In fact, after the Palin interview, I got a library book on the constitution because I judged myself and found myself wanting.
It seems to me that SCOTUS right now is putting the gavel down on the idea of never letting a good crisis go to waste.
Please check out my post 165, since you seemed to agree with BCrago66. I differed with him a bit. See if you can make sense of my explanation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2267434/posts?page=165#165
I agree with your comments, and I’m certainly no constitutional lawyer myself. Hmmm, was that a put down? LOL I didn’t mean it to be.
Ginsberg didn’t chose to be “out in front.” The Supreme Court system for hearing emergency appeals divides the country into geographic zones, and each zone is assigned 1 Justice. This application for a stay went to Ginsberg; she had no discretion about it.
Thanks.....I did not know that.
Courts and judges, liberal or conservative, do not look kindly on the executive branch invading its turf.
Excerpt:
“A top Obama administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Monday to allow Chrysler’s bankruptcy to proceed, noting that the needs of the economy outweigh the needs of the deal’s detractors.”
You know, that sounds exactly like what Paulson said when they pushed through the TARP deal in the first place. It must be considered a winning tactic.
Naw. It wasn’t a put down.
There are some out there (and I suspect our president included) that argue that the constitution wasn’t that great of a document anyway.
If SCOTUS can say, “the constitution trumps you”...I will applaud the statement.
The last time I did that kind of jig before today was the Supreme Court stay that stopped the Florida recount, about 9 years ago.
He'll send in the ACORN thugs to harrass the judges just like he did with the people who received the AIG bonuses.
FINALLY!!
Obama is being held to account for stomping on the constitution!! This will be the first of many such battles to come. Obama has exceeded his constitutional authority on a number of issues(as you know). Thanks for the ping.
Big maybe. The impression I'm getting from the stories I've read is that the motion for appeal wasn't filed until yesterday, and Ginsburg ordered this temporary stay to allow time to examine it. I would be amazed if the court would up holding up the merger past next week.
OHHhhhhhhhhhhh MAMA - I feel so gooooood!
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.