When do constitutional violations become more than just a difference of opinion

rodoheel said:
This isn't going to surprise anyone but "Insurrection Barbie" appears to have a limited understanding of what an "ex parte" order is and in what situations such an order would be entered.
Click to expand...
If by limited, you mean none, I agree. They literally held a hearing, which (for non-lawyers here) is precisely the opposite of ex parte. The minute there is a hearing, it's not ex parte by definition.
 
superrific said:
If by limited, you mean none, I agree. They literally held a hearing, which (for non-lawyers here) is precisely the opposite of ex parte. The minute there is a hearing, it's not ex parte by definition.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's technically true - you can have hearings on ex parte motions in North Carolina, in particular ones seeking a TRO (I've been a part of them). It would not be an ex parte hearing if the other side was there and allowed to be heard.
 
rodoheel said:
I don't think that's technically true - you can have hearings on ex parte motions in North Carolina, in particular ones seeking a TRO (I've been a part of them). It would not be an ex parte hearing if the other side was there and allowed to be heard.
Click to expand...
They are called hearings? Not just a meeting in chambers?

Well, as far as I know, there are no ex parte hearings in federal court. And of course, the government was there, so obviously it can't be ex parte.
 
superrific said:
They are called hearings? Not just a meeting in chambers?

Well, as far as I know, there are no ex parte hearings in federal court. And of course, the government was there, so obviously it can't be ex parte.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are hearings. Though I've had them both in chambers and in open court.

I don't do family law or criminal stuff, but there are definitely "ex parte hearings" when parties seek domestic violence protective orders, too.

But yes, the fact the government was there is the main thing I was referring to as preventing the hearing from being ex parte.
 
rodoheel said:
Yes, they are hearings. Though I've had them both in chambers and in open court.

I don't do family law or criminal stuff, but there are definitely "ex parte hearings" when parties seek domestic violence protective orders, too.

But yes, the fact the government was there is the main thing I was referring to as preventing the hearing from being ex parte.
Click to expand...
All right. I didn't know they would be called hearings. I don't think they are given that name where I live.

Anyway, forget that trivial bit of nomenclature. Obviously, the government's presence by definition nullifies any claim that it was ex parte.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
If the executive branch can just ignore court ruling we no longer have three branches of government. We only have the executive.
Click to expand...
and when the executive has turned over power to a private citizen who is the richest person in the world, we no longer have an executive branch, we have a single executive.

Edit: to be clear, IMO this has already occurred
 
The question:
How long will the house GOP go along with having zero power, influence or job? If they finally say enough, then that's the only moment things can start to change. There is no enforcement of judicial rulings. Only the House has the power to stop the dictatorship. Right now, they like being lemmings.

But I really do think there will be a time that at least 10-50 GOP house members get sick of being doormats with no power that they start to push back

Will be very interesting if the dems take it back next year (likely). He's then a lame duck. Would the senate have the balls to convict in that case?
 
Last edited:
This is how you establish an autocracy....just ignore the laws and the courts.

www.rawstory.com

Judge hits Trump admin for refusing to obey restraining order on funding freeze

U.S. District Judge John McConnell issued an order directing the Trump administration to immediately obey a previous restraining order halting a funding freeze for the National Institutes of Health and two Biden-era laws.In a Friday filing, 22 state attorneys general accused the administration...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top