THANK YOU SENATOR REID! 
Posted on 07/09/2018 6:13:04 PM PDT by dirtboy
Trump nominates Kavenaugh
I thought maybe he was a ringer. Designed to take a fall. I’m sure I’m wrong.
RBG has health issues and Briyer is simply getting old wants to follow Kennedy going to the exit door.
Soros is both desperate and is trying to stay a few steps of a few nations who warrants for his arrest.
Correction: with warrants.
Thank you! You’re boring too.
:)
He’ll be far better than anyone Hillary would have nominated
THANK YOU SENATOR REID!
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were law clerks for Justice Kennedy.
It’s not the end of the world.
Clerked for Anthony Kennedy.
I see two peas in a pod.
Yup but they are leftists
Best: Big Old Laugh
Don’t know if you are correct in your theory.
We do know that President Trump all ways has a plan B ready to go.
Thank you,,,
“No, it is not. A lower court ruling that homosexual marriage is foreign to the US Constitution would be overturned in minutes. “
Actually there is NOTHING that demands it other than a court that is unchanged from the court that made that decision. There were dissenters on the court to that decision, and some of them are still on the court, and neither of Trump’s picks have had to put a Supreme Court justices thinking to the matter.
Any precedent can be argued against, in a lower court, and, nothing DEMANDS the argument be rejected at the Supreme Court. It is up the court - the sitting justices there at the time the lower court case arrives. By remaking the composition of the court, we have the chance of overturning different precedents.
MY CASE is the ability is there in the process, but Kavanaugh is not going to be Conservative enough, constitutionalist enough to be part of it. He has argued in the past, within his case history, that precedents are “the supreme law of the land”. They are not. If they were, if they could not be overturned, segregation laws by state & local governments would still be legal.
The Supreme Court can over-rule themselves. A lower court cannot overrule the Supreme Court. That is why it is called “Supreme”.
A lower court can eat around the edges, arguing a precedent doesn’t really apply. THEN the Supreme Court may overturn their own precedence.
But yes, a lower court has a requirement to give way to higher court rulings.
Sorry, lower courts all the time, even now in this era, make rulings with legal reasoning contrary to earlier Supreme Court precedents, and sometimes even as a majority, and sometimes causing their decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Yes, any Supreme Court may do nothing more than immediately send the case back to the appellate court, without any full hearing, and rejecting the case as decided by the appelate court.
But NOTHING in the Constitution or the law requires lower courts to always and forever merely agree with a Supreme Court ptecedent. Yes, paricuarly if the composition of the court has not changed greatly SCOTUS is likely to stand on a prior court’s precedent and no nothing else.
In rare occasions, as they are able to, and as the composition of the court changes over time, such a case as noted above will get a full hearing by the newer SCOTUS and the lower court’s Constitutional reasoning be examined on its own merits, and can possibly receive a majority that agrees.
How in the hell do you think segregation laws in the south were overturned? Arguments, contrary to earlier Supreme Court precedent were herd and examined.
That same possibility occurred to me as well.
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.