This OP from my post in different thread. Levin deserves own thread on this!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Liability, Mar 18, 2010.

  1. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

    "But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs. :cuckoo:

    By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

    http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf

    :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

    Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


    _____________________
    * It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

    "* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
    [7]
    those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure."
    Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2010
  2. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Outstanding OP...

    The problem of course is that the Attention span deficit of the opposition; coupled with their obtuse defense of the indefensible, prohibits them from even READING the complaint... let alone considering the merits of the argument, therein.

    :clap2::clap2::clap2:

    But that's an excellent OP, nonetheless...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    while good intentions, because this has never been used for a bill of such scope and magnitude, i believe prior precedent will cause scotus to either deny the claim or most likely deny cert....i forget the case, but its 112 years old and a more recent one that somebody filed against the rebubs (citizen case) upheld the prior ruling.

    now, i know some have given me good arguments that the facts and circumstances can be distinguished, maybe so, but i doubt it
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,090
    You sound like you're a key part of the Dems brain trust
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    Well maybe so; and in so doing SCOTUS sets aside it's primary responsibility and leaves the US subject to rule of the majority; and renders itself moot in any circumstance regarding the procedural viability of such bilateral partisan conspiracies of the Legislative and Executive Branches...

    As such, I sorta doubt that the Court will take a pass on this obvious parliamentary ruse... which amounts to the means of such a conspiracy to invoke martial law, when faced with a legislative impasse.

    Roberts is a lot of things, but a fool isn't one of 'em. No amount of irrelevant precedent can overcome the clear and present fraud which this misuse of Deem and Consent represents; and his watch over the viability of his branch of government is truly at stake.

    He passes, SCOTUS is meaningless... except where it serves, what such a pass will establish, as the needs of the two superior branches.

    It's that simple...

    Where he hears the case, and the court falls victim to a 5-4 adherence to the bill, he at least reserves the courts equitable standing; albeit at the risk of cementing of the means of such conspiracies to prevail in the future; and an all but certain civil war.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2010
  7. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    That is your legal defense of what the freaking United States House of Representatives is on the verge of doing?

    Or, put another way: That is your legal defense of what the freaking United States House of Representatives is on the verge of doing?

    I expect that kind of drivel from certain other people of the "lib" persuasion. I actually harbored the belief that YOU, of all people, would feel some obligation to be offer some more refined analysis or something at least a bit more sophisticated. Is it that you cannot defend the indefensible?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,549
    Thanks Received:
    19,880
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,540
    NOT FAIR!

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Your stupid answer puts you in the same camp as Jillian.

    The only difference is that from her, such insipid evasion is unexpected.
     
  10. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,549
    Thanks Received:
    19,880
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,540


    Liability is saying MEAN things to me!

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page