The “Judge” is a: (D) or an (R)??
The judicial tyrants strike again.
I thought the ‘power of the purse’ was for the legislative branch? Now judges can rule who must be given tax money?
Maybe the Judge should pay them
When can we start bringing malpractice lawsuits against these so called “judges”.
Time to start ignoring these judges.He made his ruling now let him try to enforce it.It worked back then and it will work now.
At some point, some one is going to have to tell a judge NO, YOU DON’T. It will spawn a “Constitutional crisis,” but at this point it is the only act between us and leftist judicial tyranny.
At some point a Governor needs to tell these judges that there is not constitutional ‘right’ to money... and if he wants Planned Parenthood to get funding... he can write a check himself.
Geez, do the states have any rights to pass their own laws anymore?
TEXAS Pay Attention, the USSC KELO DECISION gives the “State” the absolute authority to SEIZE private Property for “Economic Gain”
SEIZE THE JUDGES HOUSE AND ASSETS TO PAY THE MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT.
Let him CHOKE ON IT!!!
It’s about time that some of these judges be asked what part of the Constitution gave them the authority to order spending?
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.”).
Fascist judges need to be reminded that they have no Constitutional power to create or nullify law. The best way to remind these black-robe Nazis is by impeaching, removing and indicting them for treason.
Then hang them until dead.
Judges rule America. The Constitution be damned.
Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare or for abortion purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from official sources.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Elections are meaningless, the president is powerless... We are all run by appointed judges.
the legislature could, if it wants to, assert its legitimate tax, policy, and appropriations powers
and refuse to accept or comply with the judge
‘how many tanks has the judge?”
eventually, the judicial over-stepping of elected officials’ proper functions... needs to be stopped
we need a good honest judiciary, not one that thinks it is a bunch of Stalins in black robes
Where is the spineless congress over ruling this nonsense
do it anyways.
shut down as many as possible on violations and technicalities and zoning problems and whatever else they can throw at them.
Everyone should read Charles Murray’s book...”By the People”...it’s a slog...but needs reading