In Historic 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, 3 Justices Ruled To Be Morons

[marvin martian]

"portrayed" as a win? It's a huge win.

A victory over judicial oligarchy!

 

[M14 Shooter]

This ruling is going to work out great.
For the next Barack Obama.
Just think. No more Judge Kysmaracks in Texas that can be shopped by conservatives for favorable rulings against things like guns, and abortions.

Look at you, demonstrating you have zero idea what this ruling does.
Well done.

 

[BluesLegend]

You mean the 50/50 Congress which puts the lie to the notion that the President has a "mandate" to push through his agenda????

Trump was just on TV that he won in a "landslide" because he won all 7 Swing States. He won the election by a 1.5% margin. MORE VOTERS STAYED HOME THAN VOTED FOR TRUMP.

Trump won a weak squeaker of an election, with 25% of registered voters casting ballots for him, in a slim margin over Harris, and Trump has has declared himself King.

It would be laughably funny if it wasn't so dangerous and unhinged.

Shut your hole Canada.

 

[Crepitus]

Oh Bull. You have to know your side will use this decision as well as conservatives do. District courts don't have authority outside their districts. It's only logical, otherwise there oud be no district courts, just national ones.

And it will be fascism if Democrats do it too.

 

[Crepitus]

"Wholly owned"? What farcical planet are you living on. The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of liberals this session more than in favor of conservatives. I expected better of justices that claimed to be constitutionalists.

This one, where it's fashionable for billionaires to own a supreme court justice or two.

 

[skews13]

Look at you, demonstrating you have zero idea what this ruling does.
Well done.

I can't wait for the next "duly elected" Democrat to use his "mandate" by the voters to exercise his "Article 2" powers.

 

[Dekster]

Good luck with that.

The law is the law and that case is still pending.

 

[marvin martian]

View attachment 1129589

This is one of the dumbest bits of propaganda your cult has fed you.

You accepted it without question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can't wait for the next "duly elected" Democrat to use his "mandate" by the voters to exercise his "Article 2" powers.

Look at you, continuing to demonstrate you have zero idea what this ruling does.
Well done.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s so facist that a district judge in Piodunk can no longer issue a decree blanketing the entire nation and nullift POTUS .
It was insanity it was ever even tried

 

[WelfareQueen]

Within the context of a judicial proceeding to determine the constitutionality of an executive order, demonstrate the difference between "overturn" and "nullify".

Within the context of a judicial proceeding to determine the constitutionality of an executive order, demonstrate the difference between "overturn" and "nullify".

Great question. The Court has every right to bring up Constitutional problems in a Law or Executive order. However, no Court, including the Supreme Court can nullify law. Only Congress can create, amend, or nullify law. The Court illegally gave itself the power to overturn law in Marbury vs. Madison, however, this power can only be given to the Court by We the People. We have never granted our judiciary the power to overturn or nullify Law.

This has been challenged several times in our history and the courts lost as they did today.

The remedy for bad law or executive orders is for the Congress or Executive to amend or nullify the law or executive order to conform to the the legal ruling. The remedy is not for the Court to nuke the Law. They do not have that power.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court illegally gave itself the power to overturn law in Marbury vs. Madison,

You might as well stop right now.
Marbury, and the judicial review that came with it, isn't going anywhere.

 

[berg80]

What can individual federal courts immediately do when the prez issues a blatantly unconstitutional order? The SC gave its answer on Friday morning: Not much.

In a predictable act of deference to the executive branch for the extremist conservatives, the SC essentially said that district judges can't stop an illegal presidential order from going into effect nationwide. A judge can stop an order from affecting a given plaintiff or state, if one has the wherewithal to file a lawsuit. But if there’s no lawsuit in the next state over, the president can get away with virtually anything he wants.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What can individual federal courts immediately do when the prez issues a blatantly unconstitutional order? The SC gave its answer on Friday morning: Not much.

In a predictable act of deference to the executive branch for the extremist conservatives, the SC essentially said that district judges can't stop an illegal presidential order from going into effect nationwide. A judge can stop an order from affecting a given plaintiff or state, if one has the wherewithal to file a lawsuit. But if there’s no lawsuit in the next state over, the president can get away with virtually anything he wants.

What can the president do when a federal court issues a blatantly unconstitutional order, with a short deadline that does not allow time for an appeal before the action required by the order?

 

[WelfareQueen]

You might as well stop right now.
Marbury, and the judicial review that came with it, isn't going anywhere.

It has been challenged and lost in each case. All law is derived from We the People. We fought a Revolution over rule by consent of the governed.

No Court has the right to grant itself powers that are not sanctioned by we the people. That is unconstitutional. And I have won this argument with every lawyer I have debated. No President has aggressively gone after the Court on this since Andrew Jackson, but he won. Trump should do the same, and he would win as well.

 

[berg80]

What can the president do when a federal court issues a blatantly unconstitutional order, with a short deadline that does not allow time for an appeal before the action required by the order?

If a prez wants to alter the Constitution there are legal ways to do so. Issuing an EO isn't one of them. But then, when the conservatives on the SC are willing to allow an unconstitutional EO to stand we have crossed the Rubicon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It has been challenged...

Marbury, and the judicial review that came with it, isn't going anywhere.

 

[Dragonlady]

Shut your hole Canada.

Thank you for admitting I'm right and you have nothing. When you go straight to insults about my nationality, I know the answer nailed your ass with the facts.

Oh Bull. You have to know your side will use this decision as well as conservatives do. District courts don't have authority outside their districts. It's only logical, otherwise there oud be no district courts, just national ones.

Every President from either Party has had their Executive Orders, restrained, and declared unconstitutional, and every President has bitched like hell when it happened. But this SC seems particularly determined to empower the Presidency and end citizens rights.

This whole law suit was an attempt for Trump to get SOME kind of win on an issue which is clearly unconstitutional. The SC order will be impossible to enforce. If you're born in New York, you're a citizen but if you move to Florida, you're not?????

 

[Rawley]

The remedy is not for the Court to nuke the Law. They do not have that power.

Sure they do.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If a prez wants to alter the Constitution there are legal ways to do so. Issuing an EO isn't one of them. But then, when the conservatives on the SC are willing to allow an unconstitutional EO to stand we have crossed the Rubicon.

Not an answer to my question, so I'll try again:

What can the president do when a federal court issues a blatantly unconstitutional order, with a short deadline that does not allow time for an appeal before the action required by the order?

For example, suppose a Democrat congressperson had been briefed on the raid on Iran's nuclear weapons program before the mission. By the time that Democrat can get the highly classified information to an anti-Israel activist group and that group files a suit in a lower federal court, the mission aircraft have already taken off.

The lower court judge orders the lawyers for the president to ensure that the planes are turned around immediately.

If the president believes this order is unconstitutional, what can the president do (legally, according to you)?