Less Than $900 To Go!!
If You Haven't Donated Yet This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 06/02/2014 8:55:06 AM PDT by pierrem15
"The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard."
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Series? Hugh? I think its ements.
“In our federal system. the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the People retain the remainder.”
Sotomayor must have about hucked her guts having to sign onto a decision containing that affirmation.
Scalia’s concurrence is stellar; his textual analysis of the Federal Law in question concludes NOT that the Federal Law does not apply, but that it applies unconstitutionally, and is, therefore, null and void.
Roberts, writing the opinion, takes pages to examine the question of whether the Federal Law applies to the defendant’s acts. Scalia’s concise analysis runs less than a page. Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but very often the beating heart of Truth, as well. Belabored explanations arouse our suspicions for the good reason that they so frequently belie a vacuity of truth at their roots.
Scalia explains, “The Court does not think the interpretive exercise so simple. But that is only because its result-driven, antitextualism befogs what is evident.” His subsequent dismantling of the Opinion of The Court is truly a thing of beauty as he demonstrates, point-by-point why The Court ruled correctly for erroneous reasons.
Dear God in Heaven, give me eight more “Scalias” and we might, at long last, witness a full restoration of the vigor and stature of this once-mighty Representative Republic as a Nation of Laws “with Liberty, and Justice for all.”
“We one one? That’s pretty series.”
Yes, it’s HUGH!
I’d say we have a pattern with Roberts—and it is not a good one.
I don’t understand what this means.
He was so excited we were winning won that he made a homonym error...
ENOUGH OF THESE ADD HOMONYM ATTACKS
The dreaded homonym error. These days that's also considered to be a hate crime.
Are you logged in?
Sotomayor must have about hucked her guts having to sign onto a decision containing that affirmation.
No. You see, it's only 'limited' in the same way that the copyright term is for a "limited" time. In other words, the 'limits' are whatever the hell the government wants them to be.
I’d say you’re right. This isn’t a win, it’s a corruption. Roberts sure looks like he’s the political fixer for official Washington. Bush (the dynasty) knew what he was doing.
Kenny Loggin?
I see this in a similar light to you (I think)... The Supreme Court has authority to adjudicate, not legislate. Similarly we have a President whose job is to execute the law of the land... but here this clocksucker is changing legislation to suit his ignoble goals.
At some point the G-d damned House and Senate better pull their collective heads out of their asses and start by filing articles of impeachment against all of these tyrants.
Just like Poppy knew what he was doing with Souter—and W tried to do with Harriet Miers.
“At some point the G-d damned House and Senate better pull their collective heads out of their asses and start by filing articles of impeachment. “
Not going to happen. Ever. One faction of the uniparty does not challenge the other faction.
A very narrow (albeit unanimous) win. The majority holds that Congress didn’t mean the statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Treaty to reach a simple assault within one of the states just because it used poison. Only Alito, Scalia and Thomas said that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to do that even if it wanted to.
In this particular case, O'Clocksucker didn't change the law; rather, he enforced the law exactly as Congress wrote it, in accordance with his constitutional powers. Roberts et al., is the person who changed the law in order to side-step the 10th Amendment issue by finding that the Act simply does not apply to the type of domestic violence (as in inter-family) at the root of the dispute. In a way, Robert's opinion is an anti-adminstration slap in that the Court essentially found that Holder failed to correctly interpret the law. In contrast, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito found that the Justice Department properly interpreted and applied the law precisely as Congress wrote it; and that the law is unconstitutional under the 10 Amendment as applied to this particular defendant.
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.