Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/28/2011 12:52:17 PM PDT by american_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: american_steve

So, S. 1194 runs counter to Printz. v. United States? Funny how these potentates on the Judiciary Committee always demand fidelity to precedent from Supreme Court nominees but have no troubling designing bills that violate that same Court precedent.


2 posted on 07/29/2011 8:42:19 AM PDT by IndePundit (Bleeding Red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: american_steve

First open borders, now courts without borders.


5 posted on 07/29/2011 12:10:36 PM PDT by dont_tread_on_malik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: american_steve

Successive challenges to convictions and sentences. Great. Meanwhile, as the courts back up on those cases, other criminals are on the streets. Anyone put thought into how much money this would cost to staff up the courts and prisons?


6 posted on 07/29/2011 12:26:41 PM PDT by T.Bourne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson