Another Unconstitutional Law Falls

[JakeStarkey]

Tell me when it is appealed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

As we just saw in a recent case , the higher court can be a bunch of pussies and not rule.

and OF COURSE the anti gun law here just lost a major challenge, it is unlikely that the government will win on appeal, and you know that.

You know nothing of the sort. With Scalia dead, the new appointment will be anti-gun.

Even if, does it matter?

 

[hadit]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Essentially, you're saying that every judicial decision has to be heard by the SC before it can be considered authoritative. Unless another court issues a stay on this decision, it is not stayed.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Essentially, you're saying that every judicial decision has to be heard by the SC before it can be considered authoritative. Unless another court issues a stay on this decision, it is not stayed.

Jake knows that , he's just being argumentative. God only knows why

 

[JakeStarkey]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Essentially, you're saying that every judicial decision has to be heard by the SC before it can be considered authoritative. Unless another court issues a stay on this decision, it is not stayed.

Those are your silly words not mine. The judge can issue the stay himself. Are you sure he has not

 

[Jarlaxle]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing ore.

YOU aren't getting it. That judicial opinion as you call it is law unless and until appealed.

And it has to work that way. What if it took a year to get into appeals court. Are you saying that in the intervening year's time that DC could just continue arresting people for a crime that a judge has ruled unconstitutional? Come on man, that's not even logical.

Logical?! Dude...look who you are replying to.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Essentially, you're saying that every judicial decision has to be heard by the SC before it can be considered authoritative. Unless another court issues a stay on this decision, it is not stayed.

Jake knows that , he's just being argumentative. God only knows why

He is a troll serving no purpose but to pad his postcount.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarl is a sad little troll who hates being the birdie in our badminton tournaments.

He is not as smart as one, either.

 

[hadit]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Essentially, you're saying that every judicial decision has to be heard by the SC before it can be considered authoritative. Unless another court issues a stay on this decision, it is not stayed.

Those are your silly words not mine. The judge can issue the stay himself. Are you sure he has not

You're assuming it's being stayed. Why not find out?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I corrected you by saying the judge could order a stay.

You were saying it had to be the appellate court: wrong.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I corrected you by saying the judge could order a stay.

You were saying it had to be the appellate court: wrong.

But in the final analysis, you were wrong. This judgement stands UNLESS the presiding judge issued a stay, or a higher court does. Unless and until the DC law IS unconstitutional.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

And the gun grabbers are shopping for a crooked left wing activist judge to make an unconstitutional ruling 'constitutional' because of he or she feeeeels it is, as we speak.

Leftists are trash.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I corrected you by saying the judge could order a stay.

You were saying it had to be the appellate court: wrong.

But in the final analysis, you were wrong. This judgement stands UNLESS the presiding judge issued a stay, or a higher court does. Unless and until the DC law IS unconstitutional.

Thank you for agreeing with me.