Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im sorry, but a judge sitting in Washington shouldn't be able to hold the national security of the entire country without even having any knowledge about the matter they are ruling on . Let their ruling affect their district. So they can live with the consequences.
Im sorry, but a judge sitting in Washington shouldn't be able to hold the national security of the entire country without even having any knowledge about the matter they are ruling on . Let their ruling affect their district. So they can live with the consequences.
How is that different than the minority of the population, and those living in rural areas, deciding how the the majority and those 80% of the population in urban areas (who have to live with the consequences) shall be governed? Excellent reason to ditch the electoral college.
Yawn. Most likely would be found unconstitutional. As such its a waste of time, money, and effort.
That's what I was wondering. The judge can just strike down this bill if it passes.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I wonder how much power does the legislative branch has over the judicial? I thought the executive branch is the check on the judicial, since it can appoint judges.
How is that different than the minority of the population, and those living in rural areas, deciding how the the majority and those 80% of the population in urban areas (who have to live with the consequences) shall be governed? Excellent reason to ditch the electoral college.
Are we really going that route? lol ....the electoral college was designed to give everyone a voice in voting. California would be deciding every election. Candidates wouldn't even have to campaign lol.....The creators of this country knew better......Hillary LOSER Clinton did not even campaign in Wisconson or the rust belt.... Thats why she lost lol
As for your question.... How is one judge's decision representing the minority?
Why, to silence people doing things you disagree with?
Or do you have some special faith in the legislative branch over the judicial?
Your reasoning here is vague.
No vagueness here. Just common sense. If a judge wants to make a decision for the entire country. They should make their ruling then it should head to the higher courts for argument. Then a ruling be made.
HR 4927 = This bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions. Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only: (1) to the parties to the case before that district court, or (2) in the federal district in which the injunction is issued.
Democrats will fight this tooth and nail. They love the idea of activist Left wing judges dictating federal policy.
They're already fighting this post on here lol...I can only imagine in congress
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
