This one is a Grabby Poppy judge - GHW Bush, the senior globalist.
Bet he's cackling in his oatmeal this morning...
Posted on 08/17/2018 7:03:55 AM PDT by Kevin in California
Congress could limit the jurisdiction of the courts so that only the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of any federal law or executive order. Could. But they won’t.
This one is a Grabby Poppy judge - GHW Bush, the senior globalist.
Bet he's cackling in his oatmeal this morning...
Clarence Thomas made a comment about the topic recently in a decision. Perhaps that means the Supreme Court can do something about it, too.
Quote: “If the sky’s the limit... Federal judge rules Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, orders Trump to turn over Presidency to true winner.”
Honestly, with the trajectory that the leftist judiciary is currently on, could you not envision that happening?
He should have done that when the first circuit court judge put a stop on his first travel ban. Instead, he appealed the ruling through the higher courts, which did nothing but grant the Judicial branch even more power over the Executive.
It was an error of major strategic importance, and I said so at the time.
No. That only reinforces and further cements the high court's unconstitutional supremacy over the Executive branch.
They could just as easily uphold the lower court's authority to run roughshod over the office of the president, as they're now doing.
The correct response is for the Executive branch to assert its constitutional and lawful authority to make and enforce national policy, as regards the function of that branch of the federal government.
We've seen state courts order candidate replacements after absentee ballots have been sent out.
We've seen state courts order "found" ballots to be counted.
We've seen dead candidates' "wins" counted as vacancies instead of as ineligible and wasted votes.
We've seen state courts order selective county recounts.
We've seen the United States Supreme Court order the stopping of selective county recounts, ruling that entire states must be recounted if any recounts are to take place.
We've not yet seen courts rule that a vote for one candidate must be counted for another. Florida came close in considering whether an undervote (no presidential vote when the rest of the ballot was straight party) should count for the same party (they said there was no implied intent to vote for the President).
We've not yet seen a court overturn an election and award the seat to the loser.
-PJ
Agree wholeheartedly.
Quote: “we have not yet. . .”
“Yet” being my point exactly. The left doesn’t like to lose because they feel they are entitled to win. Like a snowflake being triggered, a Federal Judge wields his or her power to create their own safe space and shove it don’t win the rest of the Country’s throat.
“As a real estate agent, I have advised clients and potential clients seeking to buy or sell parcels of land to do due diligence. If there is a recurring mud puddle it may be declared a wetland and greatly devalue the property...”
This issue was addressed by the USSC in Rampanos v US. Also in SWANCC v US.
In it’s most simple terms, the USSC said that puddles and streams are not navigable waters. The issue of so-called wetlands is irrelevant under laws passed by congress.
-PJ
The nonsense that a district court can issue a national injunction is garbage on its face. The SC needs to smack these birches down
I live in mortal fear of this. I am in a blue state (for about 3/4 more years) and I live dangerously close to a mosquito infested swamp...errrr, I mean “wetland.”
I did not know this when I purchased the property but it is now confirmed and I always wonder when some offshoot of the EPA Nazi will come striding in and tell me that my 2 story garage that we put up (with a town permit) is “too close” to the mosquito infested swamp.
that and the value of your property plummets. Of course you still have to pay exorbitant TAXES on said property.
That was in 2006. The advising was mostly in the 1980s and 90s, when the green mafia was running wild, well before the USSC decision.
The greenies are still likely to claim that some endangered critter or plant inhabits your property, though.
As I am sure you have read, one Justice has stated that they are getting sick of this chit.
I'm baffled too. I don't remember that in the Constitution. And if it ain't in the Constitution, it can be fixed.
Trump and company did not follow legislated administrative procedures. Go back, follow the law as written, delay implementation. Period and simple.
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.