Posted on 05/05/2014 3:33:46 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
The legal left and media are always last to know, but there are the makings of a correction in how the courts police conflicts between the political branches. President Obama's serial executive power abuses—on health care, immigration, marijuana and much else—may be inspiring a heathy rejoinder.
Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to create and amend laws and the President to faithfully execute them, but Mr. Obama has grabbed inherent Article I powers by suspending or rewriting statutes he opposes. The President has usurped Congress with impunity because he assumes no one has the legal standing to challenge him.
Most of the time people who are exempted from laws do not suffer the concrete injuries that the judiciary can redress, while the courts maintain a presumption that Members of Congress also lack such standing. In 1997's Raines v. Byrd, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against the line-item veto brought by six Congressmen because the loss of legislative power they challenged was a "wholly abstract and widely dispersed" injury.
But that doesn't mean that conduct that marginalizes the legislative branch is absolved of judicial review. In one notable case, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is suing the White House over the ObamaCare regulatory carve-out that conjured up special subsidies for Members and staffers who were supposed to give up federal employee health benefits to join the insurance exchanges.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
But he has something on Roberts……i.e…….all the trash in him or his family closets.
By silently, my cell phone is off 99% of the time.
I have encrypted my passwords so they are so badly garbled I have to use cut and paste to log on.
More fun to play the game this way.
Finally, when you notice you are being tailed by someone in a car, and you are in a bicycle, they have a hard time going slow enough to follow you -- especially without being noticed. And I have had that happen.
Nothing will come of this. Congress and SCOTUS will say the same on the usurper. Congress has allowed him carte blanche on EOs and SCOTUS has "evaded" (per Thomas) the eligibility problem.
Bookmark
The usurper has something on every one of them for Thomas to say they were "evading" the eligibility problem. "Evading" is way past avoiding it or not wanting to deal with it. It's knowingly shoving it under the rug to hide it as long as possible. Either Hillary gave him her FBI file on them or he did his own dirty work but there isn't anyone in politics who doesn't have a skeleton or two in their closets and he owns them all.
Anyone in that position should be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court.
It used to be that being pro-sodomy was automatic disqualification.
Now it seems, it is imperative that, if you have any life experience subject to political blackmail, the same prohibition should certainly apply.
We can no longer rely on honor, morals, balls or whatever to know that a justice will rule on the basis of the law, not on the basis of his fear of personal, possible criminal "outing"!
God Bless you FRiend. Never forget that these are evil people and will not hesitate to kill you.
Something I did for Lent (during Holy Week) was watching the film For Greater Glory. Basically, the atheistic government of Mexico in the 1920's went after the Catholic Church.
They would shoot priests for dressing as a priest.
I guess I am tired of the nonsense that is going on.
Just fixing a tagline issue...
I understand. I just wrote that out of concern for you. We all do what we have to do.
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.