Posted on 12/11/2009 7:22:05 PM PST by GOP_Lady
WASHINGTON — The federal government must continue to provide grant money to the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution barring the group from receiving federal dollars.
A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision.
The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a “bill of attainder,” a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group.
That provision plays a crucial, but rarely necessary, role in maintaining the balance of powers, said Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School. “It says that the Congress may not act as judge, jury and executioner. That is precisely what the Congress sought to do in this case, and the district court was entirely right to enjoin it.”
In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, “They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We’ve come to a terrible place in history when US judges become mini-gods, like the pharisees, when their decisions reflect their own political positions, rather than the law and precedent. By comparison too many of them make the Congress look good, and when that starts to be reflected in the polls, we are in deep doo.
These idiots wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if it introduced itself.
WASHINGTON — The federal government must continue to provide grant money to the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution barring the group from receiving federal dollars.
A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision...
What do you want to bet that congress will not appeal this?
ACORN ? it was unconstitutional to give you that money since you support to destroy the US Constitution.
“Constitution?...We don’t need no steeenking Constitution!”
When have libs ever have any reguards to the Constitution anyway? Just their own interpretation of it.
“Areyou F******G kidding me?? Federal funding is not a right its a GIFT. “
This decision ranks in the top 10 judicial swindles of all time. NOBODY has a RIGHT to taxpayer dollars.
“That provision plays a crucial, but rarely necessary, role in maintaining the balance of powers, said Eric M. Freedman”
The GOP should hire a private detective to check this judges bank accounts.
"Thus, it appears that a court may have a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, and find that it violates the prohibition against bills of attainder."http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/CRS_House_ACORN_ban_may_be_unconstitional.html
So why was the Lautenberg domestic disarmament law allowed to stand?
An incredible double standard fersure!
What president nominated this judge?
We need to demand a pledge from any candidate who wants our support in 2010 to impeach this corrupt, hard-left, activist “judge”!
From Gershon’s injunction:
“The question here is only whether the Constitution allows Congress to declare that a single, named organization is barred from all federal funding in the absence of a trial,” Gershon wrote in her opinion. “Because it does not, and because the plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, I grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30504.html
Maybe if ACORN was actually convicted of breaking the law, the prohibition could stand.
She is a liberal judge appointed by Clinton. I am almost sure she is white.
I do not think this congress will impeach her.
Can a federal judge be fired?
Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve “during good behavior.” That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachment and conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country. From a practical standpoint, almost all of these judges hold office for as long as they wish. Article III also prohibits lowering the salaries of federal judges “during their continuance in office.” Bankruptcy judges, in contrast, may be removed from office by circuit judicial councils, and magistrate judges may be removed by the district judges of the magistrate judge’s circuit. Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges don’t have the same protections (lifetime appointment and no reduction in salary) as judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution.
A glimpse of the future as far as the courts are concerned. Looks like we know whose side they’ll be on if it comes down to big brother and the American people.
bump
“ACORN and their attorneys obviously ‘judge shopped’ and picked the venue/judge who’d be most favorable to them”
Or possibly receiving a piece of the action.
Federal funding for a fringe group is a Constitutional right?
Yeah, as a penumbra.
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.