Posted on 04/05/2012 11:58:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
First zero says he doesn’t need Congress. That’s one branch.
Now he says courts can’t overrule his law. That’s two branches.
He wants to be the only branch!
With all due respect to Rush, I think this judge is out of bounds.
The personal opinions of executive branch officials, what they say, and what they “believe in” is irrelevant.
What matters is their actions. If and when the Obama administration refuses to obey a court order, it is appropriate for a judge to take notice. Till then, he should pay attention to what is brought before him as part of a legal process.
I just hope and pray that we’re not being walked into the Briar Patch. What if they vote it Constitutional by 5-4 and the trap has been set and we’ve pounded our fists that noone should question the constitutionality of their finding and should not, therefore, be repealed by anyone in the future?
No he is not
“He wants to be the only branch!”
Well, yes he does. Its called DICTATORSHIP.
We all respect judge’s decisions even if we don’t agree.
The clear path if it’s upheld is repeal in Congress. That’s what it’s always been.
No, 0zero is worried it’s going down [i think it is too.]
He’s an infant upset about his toy.
“homework assignment ... a three-page single-spaced letter, ....”
Anyone, who has ever assigned homework knows that sometimes you also have to specify the font size, the page size, and the margins.
Of course, didn’t you hear Val Jerrett say they were prepared to “RULE” on the first day? You only need one branch to rule.
What would I do? Glad you asked.
I would arrange a nationwide telecast news conference. Live or taped wouldn't matter. In attendance
Michelle Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Ginrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
They would all in turn answer three questions. Each answer MUST be no more than 20 seconds (NO Obama-ing ).
The Questions.
1. Do you believe that the U.S has been a historically exceptional nation and culture for over 200 years?
A "yes" or "no" answer must suffice.
2. Do you believe that Congress should pass ANY laws that they have not written, did not debate in full congress and didn't even read?
A "yes" or "no" answer should suffice.
3. Do you believe that the Constitution created three branches of government, and all are equal and independent?
A "yes" or "no" answer should suffice.
Then make sure that the short videotape is hammered daily between now and the General Elections.
When the head of one branch of government (to wit: he _is_ that branch of government) opines in public that another branch does not have a major power which that branch has been exercising for 200+ years, a request for immediate clarification is appropriate.
Democratically elected dictators leverage the notion of “...if and when refuses to comply...”: by the time the non-compliance is established to the point of judicial consequence, the dictatorship has already been established. Put another way, while we’re chattering about what he said, someone DID have the gall - and influence - to ask the Obama to put up or shut up.
A little background is necessary for you to understand why Judge Smith was well within bounds to ask the DOJ to prepare this letter.
Remember the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? The 5th circuit overruled the Obama administration, which lifted the mroatorium. The Obama administration ignored the 5th circuit ruling. Contempt citations were issued. Fines were levied. Finally, the Obama administration complied. About a week later, they imposed the same moratorium. Judge Smith was part of the decision panel.
The Obama adminstration HAS a history of refusing to obey court orders, and making a mockery of their rulings.
The “homework assignment” serves several purposes:
- it puts the administration on notice that compliance with judicial rulings is mandatory
- it is a show of muscle by the Judicial branch. Obama has learned how to roll over the spineless House and how to use the compliant Senate. The Judicial branch NEEDS to draw a line in the sand.
This judge is hearing a case right now in regards to a specific part of OvomitCare. ( the part of Ovomitcare that says doctors cannot expand or start a new practice... paraphrasing of course )
With Ovomit out there spewing his puke about SCOTUS , why shouldnt this ( federal ) judge want clairification while he is hearing part of the same case ? Especially while the DOJ is in his courtroom as defendants.....
I think he was correct to ask for the DOJ’s “specific” response.
brilliant post, kidd.
Fine.
Then we can reverse every prior reversal and annul every Amendment after 1793.
I'm good with that.
: )
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
And the Dimocrats have proven themselves consumate masters at skirting (or actually destroying) laws, rules, tradition and common courtesy...
Is condescention really necessary?
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.