Jump to content

Should the latest Judge who ruled against President Trump recused himself?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You do realize that the judicial branch does have the power to decide if a law is unconstitutional correct?

 

Absolutely. That is the job of the SCOTUS, not one lone liberal judge in San Francisco with a history of having an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda the backbone of judicial responsibility.

 

The backbone of judicial responsibility is to see the laws passed by the legislature, be it state or federal, are upheld and applied equally.

 

It is not their job to legislate from the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. That is the job of the SCOTUS, not one lone liberal judge in San Francisco with a history of having an agenda.

 

Which is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. U.S. and the restrictions on the spending power in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius were exactly what the judge used to make this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. U.S. and the restrictions on the spending power in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius were exactly what the judge used to make this decision.

 

Why don't you check out this judges history?

 

He's a liberal hack that was awarded his place on the bench for his fundraising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backbone of judicial responsibility is to see the laws passed by the legislature, be it state or federal, are upheld and applied equally.

 

It is not their job to legislate from the bench.

 

First, Article Three of the Constitution explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional issues and federal laws, among other things.

 

Second, the issue doesn't even involve a law passed by the legislature. It was an Executive Order, by your definition we have a President legislating from the White House.

 

Third, the Judicial branch in a co-equal part of our government.

 

Third, how do you propose a court uphold and apply a law if it finds it unconstitutional?

 

Fourth, if you actually feel that courts shouldn't have this role, what do we do with laws that counter the constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you check out this judges history?

 

He's a liberal hack that was awarded his place on the bench for his fundraising.

 

So case precedent doesn't matter? Only a person's perceived background?

 

It seems to me that when Getslow argues with actual law (what the judges are supposed to do) you have now turned to "opinion" of the person rather than the judgement of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should be looked at is that these cities are protecting law breakers, some who have committed kidnapping, rape and murder. Even after they were in police custody and then released. They also broke the law entering the USA. Protecting American citizens is the number one duty of government at all levels. These cities are failing a basic responsibility to protect their citizens, instead protecting criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.