PDA

View Full Version : JUDGE: The regime acted in contempt of the law.



LWW
02-04-2011, 06:25 AM
How much longer will the US people tolerate this evil regime?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.</span> ...


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>“The government was not at liberty to impose its own will after the court struck down the policy,” Giberga said. “The government, like any citizen, had to obey the ruling, even if it didn’t like it.”</span> </div></div>

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020311/content/01125106.Par.39917.ImageFile.jpg http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020311/content/01125106.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BARACK MUST GO! BARACK MUST GO! (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html)</span>

LWW

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 07:50 AM
The administration knows what is best. They are far more qualified to determine which laws should be obeyed than some judge.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Sev
02-04-2011, 08:10 AM
As soon as a state A.G. files the papers the administration will be held in contempt of the Florida ruling on Obamacare.

The administration is moving foreword in contradiction to the courts ruling. An injunction was not required as it has been understood in the past that if a law is found unconstitutional in the past the executive branch desists.

LWW
02-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

LWW
02-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As soon as a state A.G. files the papers the administration will be held in contempt of the Florida ruling on Obamacare.

The administration is moving foreword in contradiction to the courts ruling. An injunction was not required as it has been understood in the past that if a law is found unconstitutional in the past the executive branch desists. </div></div>

Then WHY did the plaintiffs ASK THE COURT to impose an injunction, if none was necessary? (The judge denied that pleading.)

Why do other courts impose injunctions in similar cases, if it is not necessary?

I don't think that judge's claims about how this is supposed to work are how it has worked in the past.

Sev
02-04-2011, 12:09 PM
Everything I have been hearing says that it is how it has worked in the past.
The legislative branch would defer to the courts until such at time as the appeals to higher courts made the final decision.

Aside from that when a court rules a law unconstitutional that ruling itself is an injunction. The law was found to be illegal.

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 12:18 PM
Court rulings have proven to have little effect on the actions of this administrations. They seem to do whatever they want to do.
We may actually be closer to living under a dictatorship than we have ever been in our history.

Steve

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As soon as a state A.G. files the papers the administration will be held in contempt of the Florida ruling on Obamacare.

The administration is moving foreword in contradiction to the courts ruling. An injunction was not required as it has been understood in the past that if a law is found unconstitutional in the past the executive branch desists. </div></div>

Then WHY did the plaintiffs ASK THE COURT to impose an injunction, if none was necessary? (The judge denied that pleading.)

Why do other courts impose injunctions in similar cases, if it is not necessary?

I don't think that judge's claims about how this is supposed to work are how it has worked in the past. </div></div>

Please ...

When a judge declares a law unconstitutional, that law is null and void unless and until a higher court overturns the judge's decision.

No injunction has ever been required for a law that is unconstitutional because once an entire law is ruled unconstitutional it is no longer law. D'UH!

The plaintiffs asked for an injunction in advance in case the judge voided only a portion or portions of the law.

The left can howl at the Moon at the tops of their collectivist lungs ... Obamacare is no longer law and further implementation is illegal.

This regime has simply got to go.

It's history of contempt for the rule of law first reared it's ugly head with the auto bankruptcies, and has only increased with time.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everything I have been hearing says that it is how it has worked in the past.
The legislative branch would defer to the courts until such at time as the appeals to higher courts made the final decision.

Aside from that when a court rules a law unconstitutional that ruling itself is an injunction. The law was found to be illegal.

</div></div>

It isn't how it happened when that federal judge threw out DADT as unConstitutional.

Federal Judge rules DADT unconstitutional (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/)

In this case, the judge a) was going to craft an injunction to keep it from being enforced during appeals, and b) government attorneys said the judge had no power to make a nation-wide injunction, even if it were separately propounded exactly as a nation-wide injunction.

The difference?

Just a stupid judge in the DADT finding? 'Cause it sure seems that she thought an injunction was necessary in the meantime.

Or maybe it was that the federal judge in this case was a woman, and a WOMAN judge has no such power, whereas a man judge definitely does? (but I kid).

Lookit, even an appellate court ruling only has precedential value IN ITS OWN DISTRICT. Other districts are free to ignore that district's findings, unless and until the SCOTUS affirms it on appeal. If even an appellate court, higher than a federal judge, cannot bind other appellate districts, how then can one judge bind the federal government?

I don't see the argument, nor have I seen references to standing law precedents to this effect. Love to look at any you can find, however.

Sev
02-04-2011, 06:36 PM
Its not law. It is an assumed understanding between the branches of power.

Kind of like you dont put the meat to your best friends ex girlfriend.

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 07:02 PM
After she's an ex, I don't see what the problem would be there.

Which is slightly off topic, I believe.

Ok, so it's the normal understanding between the branches.

Then what happened in the case where DADT was struck down as unconstitutional? (read the link I provided in case your memory doesn't remind you of how it went down after the ruling)

Is this an understanding only for the right, and only when they agree with a federal judge's ruling? Or did that judge miss the course where they train the judges in understandings between the branches of government?

How you and LWW and others SAY things happen doesn't comport with what actually happened in that DADT ruling.

So what gives? And why, at that time, weren't the talking heads all pronouncing how her ruling alone, without the injunction, should have sufficed to keep the military from enforcing what she'd thrown out?

Stretch
02-05-2011, 03:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not law. It is an assumed understanding between the branches of power.

Kind of like you dont put the meat to your best friends ex girlfriend. </div></div>

Oooops! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif St.

pooltchr
02-05-2011, 07:37 AM
DADT was a long time policy in the military. It was actually in place, and even with a court ruling, it would have been virtually impossible to immediately change such a far reaching policy.

And, as you well know, at this time, it has been abolished. So I don't see a problem here.

Personally, I am against gays openly serving in the military, but I am also against women in combat. Different reasons for my opinions on those two subjects, and I would be happy to discuss them in a different thread. (I don't want to hijack this one)

Steve

Sev
02-05-2011, 07:52 AM
You didnt??
HAHHAA!!!

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DADT was a long time policy in the military. It was actually in place, and even with a court ruling, it would have been virtually impossible to immediately change such a far reaching policy.

And, as you well know, at this time, it has been abolished. So I don't see a problem here.

Personally, I am against gays openly serving in the military, but I am also against women in combat. Different reasons for my opinions on those two subjects, and I would be happy to discuss them in a different thread. (I don't want to hijack this one)

Steve </div></div>

This reply talks around the subject I raised but doesn't really address it.

And it is obvious that at a minimum, after that court's ruling, the DOD could have been ordered to cease and desist any court cases pending, and any investigations in the field, whatever more complications there may have been as well. (And the judge was preparing to do just that, make that injunction order, but in her opinion, it required that extra step to make that happen.)

At the time of the ruling, it was far from clear that the DADT repeal would reach a vote, still less pass. It required a handful of GOPrs to stop voting against cloture, and even those who sorta said they favored ending the practice could have been whipped by the GOP leadership to stay in lockstep to quash the motion to proceed or invoke cloture.

I see the PRACTICAL difference you raise as real, in that one was a long-time policy in full effect, and the other, just getting started and freshly minted law. But whatever the practical difference, I cannot see how that makes a legal distinction in the cases.

pooltchr
02-05-2011, 04:17 PM
How long does it take to turn a battleship around?

Steve

Stretch
02-05-2011, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How long does it take to turn a battleship around?

Steve </div></div>

That's classified information. Try wiki leaks /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

pooltchr
02-05-2011, 07:49 PM
Those of us who have spent time at sea already know the answer.

Steve