Posted on 04/25/2011 7:17:28 AM PDT by ejdrapes
I agree! The socialist progressives are following around the Justices as we speak in an off chance of catching one of them (Justices) saying something about Obamacare, so the socialist progressives can then demand they recuse themselves from hearing the case once the civil case arrives in the US Supreme Court, giving them (socialist progressives) a majority in the decision.
The replies to the post are predictable. Jim should rename this forum “Knee-jerk Republic.”
As I remember on the Florida case, there was a Judge’s order that his response to the delay tactic of the Federal defendents where they asked for an “explanation” of a clear directive. He directed them to file an expedited appeal within one week.
That was about three weeks ago and I haven’t seen a clear account of what followed — have you?
I don’t have a problem with this. Let the Fourth Circuit knock it down first. In the mean time, it will force the GOP House to act. There is no need to let them off the hook by having the court do their work for them. There is a debt ceiling bill coming up shortly. All they need to do is to defund Obamacare with that bill and remove all restrictions placed upon States and the People. It’s really that simple. And if Obama vetoes it, then he won’t have the money to implement it anyway. It’s a win-win situation. But then these are Republicans we’re talking about. Only a Republican can take a win-win situation and turn it into a lose-lose.
That is correct. Ken is aware and the administration is dragging their feet in every aspect of legal response. The fast tracking was the best option to end the knuckle dragging and get them to even acknowledge. This administration acts above the law and ignores requests and demands.
If that statement does not perfectly sum up the state of the Republican Party then I don't know what does!!
The Supreme Court has no reason to fast track this. Let the Fourth Circuit rule on it first. In the mean time, Congress can put an end to this madness any time it chooses. But so far, they haven't shown the fortitude to do so. Institutionalized corruption and cowardice.
Obam admin filed the appeal in the 11th circuit in the FL case per Judge Vinson’s order.
In theory, there is not a higher threshold. The reality, however, is that grant of certiorari to the SCOTUS directly from the district court is so rare, that the SCOTUS has apparently set a de facto threshold that is extremely hard to meet. Although I have not researched the handful of cases that went directly from the District Court to the SCOTUS, I'm going to guess that they involve imminent life and death situations involving issues of extreme importance that would probably become moot if the petitioner was first required to obtain a judgment from the Circuit Court.
Given the traditions of the Supreme Court and the importance of hearing all of the Obamacare appeals at the same time in a consolidated proceeding, I suspect that the SCOTUS's decision to deny certiorari at this time was near unanimous, if not unanimous.
Making sure the process is clean - respect the “chain of command” as the case works its way up to the supremes.
A big nothing.
You obvioulsy know nothing about the SCOTUS, appellate practice and procedure, or the Constitution.
Will DISSEMINATE them??
Surely you jest....
Bad news is right. Because, as you state, the longer they take to hear the case, the more entrenched 0care becomes. The more something like this is accepted and practiced by the people, institutions, etc., they more the Supremes are loathe to overturn it.
I am not an attorney but that's what I'm being told.
The states themselves need to decide what they're going to do regardless of the federal government. Each state will have to say, "We don't want your money, we don't want your taxes, and we don't want your Marxism. Each state will have to say, "We'll stay a Constitutional Republic."
Republic of Idaho? Republic of Texas?
Starting to sound better all the time.
The problem here isn't the threat of long-practiced custom of our society because this case is just the opposite. The problem is SCOTUS has four and a half judges that are Socialists with a pre-existing condition against stopping the Leftist juggernaut.
“”Dereliction of duty. Clowns wearing black robes. The Constitution means nothing to them anymore.”
You obviously know nothing about the SCOTUS, appellate practice and procedure, or the Constitution.”
Still if the Constitution is subject to the Opinion of the federal employees in black robes then the prison of limits The Federal Constitution supposedly created upon the Federal Government is governed by a warren not only elected by the prisoners, but also intact one of them.
If this be the case then I can only call the Federal Constitution a disgusting political joke.
Although this may be the self-serving opinion of the Federal court itself I do not beleive the Federal courts was never given the final authority to decide and enforce the Federal Constitution.
This is a power the Federal Government has usurped to itself for the empowerment of itself and the subjugation of our posterity.
It did this in the same way the Federal injustices normaly stage their userpations, first they start out slowly then they mistake their prevous words for law and buld themselfs further into the position of unchecked power they and their appointees so desire.
In this particularly case they first declared they had the oath based responsibility to enforce the constitution and that therefore gave them the non-excursive ability to define it. - Mansion vs maybury.
The Next step was about 10 years later where they declared in the name of uniformity of laws they had the final word on the Constitution.
Having accomplished theses 2 steps “in logic” they acquired both the power to define the constitution and the power of the final word on the constitution both powers together amount for control over the Constitution.
Meaning in no to brief of terms “The Constitution is whatever I say it is.” A reticules statement when one thinks about the very foundation of a free republic yet all too commonly heard and accepted when speaking of the Federal Government’s own hand picked courts.
There are Christian alternatives that allow the same opting out.
I have no personal experience with any of these, FYI.
http://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/
http://www.samaritanministries.org/
From other Freepers, I have heard good things about SamaritanMinstries.
Really?
Think about this: Congress inserted into law via the FY2011 Budget, that President Obama signed that he was not allowed to have any more "Czars." Two days after signing it, President Obama issued a statement saying he was "ignoring" that provision. Let's go further. Obama and Eric Holder declared via a press release that they were choosing to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Law anymore (it was signed into law by President Clinton) because the present Administration said they were going to ignore the law.
Congress passed the FY2011 budget almost 7 months into the Fiscal Year because the Pelosi/Reid Congress chose to "leave a mess for the Republicans." A shutdown was a trap being set by the media and Democrats, and the GOP chose a tactical maneuver to avoid it. Congress is now focusing on the FY2012 budget. Given what Obama has already done, he can "ignore" parts of law (even law he signs!) and Congress has only one arrow in its quiver to deal with the abuse of power by the President. Impeachment.
However, even this power is neutered before it is even exercised. The House can Impeach as it did to Bill Clinton, but Clinton's "survival" if Impeachment castrated its power and threat. The Reid Senate would never, ever vote to convict Obama, much less even to hold the vote on all the articles of Impeachment.
So, now where does that leave us? No where. The only other options are too scary to even discuss.
Dereliction of duty.
No. The derelict was the idiot who presented this case to the Supreme Court one week before they break until the Fall (October). Supremes have their entire docket completed easily by February for the rest of the year.
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.