The folly of it all--GOP Blundering!

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Bad example. Congress works for their constituents, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.  Perhaps, civics wasn't your strong suit.

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Hunting in a barren field if you're looking for an honest demoslop/lefty/progressive or whatever the heck the evil, traitorous  b******* call themselves now days.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Bad example. Congress works for their constituents, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.  Perhaps, civics wasn't your strong suit.

____

WH-A-A-T?  THAT is about as arcane a dismal mess as you have ever posted.

Bestworking posted:

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Hunting in a barren field if you're looking for an honest demoslop/lefty/progressive or whatever the heck the evil, traitorous  b******* call themselves now days.

___

More absolutist drivel from the chief barfer of same!

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Bad example. Congress works for their constituents, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.  Perhaps, civics wasn't your strong suit.

____

WH-A-A-T?  THAT is about as arcane a dismal mess as you have ever posted.

If, that is so arcane you can't fathom it, either my statement on civics is correct or you are further in dementia than I realized.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Bad example. Congress works for their constituents, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.  Perhaps, civics wasn't your strong suit.

____

WH-A-A-T?  THAT is about as arcane a dismal mess as you have ever posted.

If, that is so arcane you can't fathom it, either my statement on civics is correct or you are further in dementia than I realized.

____

The arcane nature of your statement is not what it says, but just how it has any place in this discussion.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

First, no inferior court would send a writ as its existence depends upon Congress. Nor, does an instrumentality exist to force congress to obey the writ.  Do you imagine a shotout between a court baliff and Capital police.  The Supreme court ordered President Jackson to cease sending eastern Indian tribes west -- that wasn't enforced, either.

___

I hope no one would get wounded in that "shotout."

As above, I continue to maintain that "I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure [as exiling a judge who issued a ruling uncomfortable to certain Congressional interests] would surely fail."  And I recall others of integrity in government who acted boldly despite the certainly of their removal--"The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...idents-power-nixon2/

The candle of Diogenes can yet illuminate.

Bad example. Congress works for their constituents, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.  Perhaps, civics wasn't your strong suit.

____

WH-A-A-T?  THAT is about as arcane a dismal mess as you have ever posted.

If, that is so arcane you can't fathom it, either my statement on civics is correct or you are further in dementia than I realized.

____

The arcane nature of your statement is not what it says, but just how it has any place in this discussion.

I'll simplify it for you.  Voters from a member of congress's district determine if he returns to congress, not the leaders of the two houses.  BTW, loss of a sense of humor is another symptom of your progression. That's why so many of your arguments end with the equivalent of "you kids get off my lawn,"