Court orders being ignored or disregarded by Trump

nycfan said:
Also, Marbury v Madison:

IMG_5744.jpeg


supreme.justia.com

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Marbury v. Madison: Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com

“… It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. …”
Click to expand...
Technically, judicial review isn't IN the constitution.

And technically the district courts and the appeals courts are made by Congress and aren't specifically provided for in the constitution (they are referred to hypothetically).

So that's how Levin is going to defend himself against accusations of lying -- when, in fact, he is lying in substance and hiding behind technicalities.
 
ZenMode said:
I think it would be very entertaining if the judge found Trump in contempt and started fining him or worse. Trump would lose his mind on social media.
Click to expand...
Trump is not a party to the case, to my knowledge, so he can't be found in contempt. He's the big boss.

It's the lawyers and maybe the department heads who would held in contempt.
 
superrific said:
Technically, judicial review isn't IN the constitution.

And technically the district courts and the appeals courts are made by Congress and aren't specifically provided for in the constitution (they are referred to hypothetically).

So that's how Levin is going to defend himself against accusations of lying -- when, in fact, he is lying in substance and hiding behind technicalities.
Click to expand...
I am aware but a lot of people he is misleading are not. Our civics education is lacking anyway, now we have the POTUS and his supporters actively undermining understanding of separation of powers.
 
nycfan said:
I am aware but a lot of people he is misleading are not. Our civics education is lacking anyway, now we have the POTUS and his supporters actively undermining understanding of separation of powers.
Click to expand...
It will likely fall upon Roberts and possibly Barrett to rule with the three sane justices to make clear the Constitutionality of these federal courts and the scope of their powers.
 
nycfan said:
I am aware but a lot of people he is misleading are not. Our civics education is lacking anyway, now we have the POTUS and his supporters actively undermining understanding of separation of powers.
Click to expand...
I know you're aware. Sometimes when I respond, I'm primarily speaking to different posters or readers.

It's important that people understand the claim. Technically, he's not lying. In substance he is. But if people take away, "Mark Levin is a liar" and then someone else tells them, "no, look, it's actually true," then they might get the wrong impression.
 
I hope the orangeturd actions are threatening the "power" that SCOTUS thinks they have...and they respond accordingly-I mean a slim majority obviously not a couple of them
I am just talking human psychology-I have little fath Roberts has some deep seated moral compass about SCOTUS
Then it will get interesting and MAYBE orangeturd will slow walk his takeover
 


And a district court judge’s rulings can be stayed or overturned by the Appeals Court or SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision can only be overturned by SCOTUS (or the other two branches can try to reverse a decision via legislation signed into law and subject to judicial scrutiny).
 
nycfan said:


And a district court judge’s rulings can be stayed or overturned by the Appeals Court or SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision can only be overturned by SCOTUS (or the other two branches can try to reverse a decision via legislation signed into law and subject to judicial scrutiny).
Click to expand...

Well DUH, Mr. Miller.
That's exactly how the court system is set up.
USDC judges have limited jurisdiction and their decisions are automatically subject to appellate review.
This isn't unjust in any way, shape or form. It's set up this way for purposes of judicial economy.
 
nycfan said:


And a district court judge’s rulings can be stayed or overturned by the Appeals Court or SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision can only be overturned by SCOTUS (or the other two branches can try to reverse a decision via legislation signed into law and subject to judicial scrutiny).
Click to expand...

I must have missed Miller’s tweet on this when a single judge in Amarillo was acting as his own super FDA to regulate pharmaceuticals throughout the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top