Showing posts with label Judicial Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Activism. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2017

9th Circuit Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's Immigration EO, Upholds Restraining Order











































at Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 9, 2017

Poll: 80% Want Justices Who Apply Constitution as Originally Written

at Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 30, 2015

Lawless Judges Have Created an America Where Praying Gets a Man Suspended from His Job

at Labels: ,

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Did a Court Really Rule That Conservatism Is a Mental Illness?









at Labels: , ,

Monday, July 6, 2015

John Yoo: The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches



◼ Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits: The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches. - National Review

...Rather than give any one branch the final word, the Constitution creates three branches that can compete over its meaning. The separation of powers means not only that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are separate, but that they are also independent of one another. According to Jefferson, “the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” ...
at Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Good piece on the Supreme Court's lockstep left bloc.

at Labels: , ,

Friday, June 26, 2015

Supreme Court vs. Rule of Law





at Labels: , , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2014

‘The fix was in’: Activist judge puts disqualified Rep. John Conyers on primary ballot



◼ Damn it feels good to be a Democrat. - Twitchy, Who Said What on Twitter

Michigan Rep. John Conyers failed to collect enough signatures to get a spot on the primary ballot, why should that stand in his way? After Conyers appealed to secretary of state and lost, a judge brazenly overruled the secretary’s decision:









at Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Why a Constitution?


◼ Liberals fear the Court may respect its limits. - Charles C. W. Cooke/National Review Online

...(S)ince last week’s oral arguments, the real speculation has been about how “conservative” Justice Roberts and “independent” Justice Kennedy will vote, while there has been no conjecture whatsoever about the likely opinions of the court’s four “liberals” — Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg — all of whom are widely predicted to side with the administration. Clearly, if any group within the court deserves to be described as “doctrinaire,” it’s this quartet. No such depiction has come forth.

Indeed, for 70 years now, the Court has shown an untold deference to Congress, and, on economic matters at least, allowed progressives to realize almost every desire that they could get past the people. If the federal government has finally pushed it too far with Obamacare — which it may well have done — it will be the Court’s limiting federal power that will be anomalous; a rare check on the insatiable power of the state instead of business as usual. E. J. Dionne might well consider that, in response to this trend, conservatives have moved “further to the right” than ever, but that is a separate debate; for it is not the Republicans’ political platform, but the never-ending expansion of government, that has put the Department of Health and Human Services in court. And if judicial skepticism toward a federal government that can find no limiting principle to its power represents a “coup d’état,” then one has to ask what the Constitution is for....
at Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Today, during another of his regular press conference diatribes against everyone who stands in his way, the man who has circumvented Congress with dozens of czar appointments and scores of executive orders and administrative fiats, warned the court again — to show “deference” to Congress.

◼ Yesterday, as you all know, President Obama went after the “unelected” justices of the Supreme Court. So much for the constitutional law lecturer’s appreciation of the separation of powers. - Michelle Malkin

via charliespiering

◼ Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court - Ruth Marcus/Washington Post

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.... Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

◼ At least one lower court is already leading a legal backlash: - Jan Crawford/CBS
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
◼ Fifth Circuit calls out DOJ lawyer: Is your boss now claiming that courts don’t have the power to strike down laws? Update: A lawyer’s take - HotAir
◼ Did the Supreme Court’s initial ObamaCare vote leak to Obama? - HotAir
◼ Mark Levin goes through Obama’s statement today, segment by segment, and does the job the MSM won’t do in pointing out the lies and truths in Obama’s statement (Audio)

◼ Federal Appeals Court: Yo, Barry -- You Got 'Til Thursday to Explain Your Chavez-Like Speechifying - Doug Ross
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed. Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress. ... That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
◼ Barack Obama, Constitutional Buffoon - NoQuarter
at Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)