Message to America from Mark Levin

[Merrill]

So this narrative spread by MSNBC and Democrats about how SCOTUS will do absolutely anything Trump tells them to do is flat-out wrong yes?

I would also remind people of the ruling SCOTUS handed down regarding Obamacare (PPACA) taxation powers, which went completely against the GOP

The court is conservative right now, but it is in no way some puppet Trump controls

 

[Bradskii]

He did not lie. He is agreeing with FOUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

Good grief, man. He said 'district judges preside over a district. Their jurisdiction is therefore only in that district. They have no national judicial powers. And yet, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Ali’s order aimed at the executive branch – a black and white overreach of power.'

That is simply not true. As you would have found if you'd spent ten seconds typing 'Can US district courts decide on federal matters?' You don't even have to type it out. I'll help. It'll get you here: https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/what-kinds-of-cases-can-federal-courts-decide.html

'Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases that raise federal questions, particularly those involving the federal government, the U.S. Constitution, or other federal laws.'

Got that so far? Good. So what does the federal court system comprise?

'The general trial courts of the federal court system are the U.S. District Courts. These courts handle both criminal and civil cases. The district courts are also where parties first file their pleadings.'

Now you spent a complete post saying that Levin really knows what he's talking about. Fair enough. So it is safe to say that he must have lied.

 

[Bradskii]

So this narrative spread by MSNBC and Democrats about how SCOTUS will do absolutely anything Trump tells them to do is flat-out wrong yes?

I can't recall any discussions on the forum that said they would roll over for Trump regarding every decision. What I do recall is a thread that asked that if the SC went against Trump, would he comply. Not an insignificant number of posters demurred.

 

[Vambram]

Good grief, man. He said 'district judges preside over a district. Their jurisdiction is therefore only in that district. They have no national judicial powers. And yet, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Ali’s order aimed at the executive branch – a black and white overreach of power.'

That is simply not true. As you would have found if you'd spent ten seconds typing 'Can US district courts decide on federal matters?' You don't even have to type it out. I'll help. It'll get you here: https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/what-kinds-of-cases-can-federal-courts-decide.html

'Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases that raise federal questions, particularly those involving the federal government, the U.S. Constitution, or other federal laws.'

Got that so far? Good. So what does the federal court system comprise?

'The general trial courts of the federal court system are the U.S. District Courts. These courts handle both criminal and civil cases. The district courts are also where parties first file their pleadings.'

Now you spent a complete post saying that Levin really knows what he's talking about. Fair enough. So it is safe to say that he must have lied.

He is not lying when there are four Supreme Court justices agree with him. Four Supreme Court Justices agree that district court judges should not have the ability to over ride the President of the United States.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

He is not lying when there are four Supreme Court justices agree with him. Four Supreme Court Justices agree that district court judges should not have the ability to over ride the President of the United States.

What about the five that disagree? Are they lying?

 

[Bradskii]

He is not lying when there are four Supreme Court justices agree with him. Four Supreme Court Justices agree that district court judges should not have the ability to over ride the President of the United States.

The 4 SC justices didn't say that a district court didn't have the right to make decisions on a federal level that concern the government. Levin did. He lied.

What the 4 SC justices did was complain about the fact that it appeared to them (at least one of them) that they were dictating to the president how he spends the governments money. As I pointed out, that's not in dispute. They can't. It's not within their remit. They don't have that power. It wasn't done in this case. In this case there was a TRO issued that effectively said 'You will comply with the dictates of the legislative'.

Again, a classic example of the separation of powers. So no, they weren't agreeing with Levin whatsoever.

 

[Vambram]

What about the five that disagree? Are they lying?

No, they are not lying. They are disagreeing. There is a clear difference between lying and disagreeing.

 

[Merrill]

I would remind everyone that a few people in this thread were arguing that it was constitutional and correct to remove Trump from state presidential ballots last year

and they were entirely convinced such actions would be upheld by SCOTUS

even though the whole thing was based on bad legal reasoning and was a laughable stretch --SCOTUS agreed and shot down the efforts

this issue is decidedly more complicated, but I would take any strong opinions on this with a grain of salt

 

[Bradskii]

this issue is decidedly more complicated, but I would take any strong opinions on this with a grain of salt

The thread has generally dealt in facts. Well, the the posts that didn't have large swathes of whatever Levin thought he could get away with.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What these five Supreme Court judges are saying is: The law isn’t the law. The law is as I say it is. It’s funny how progressives talk about modernism and futurism, but when you look at their actions, it becomes obvious that they are primitive in their thinking. They don’t believe in inalienable rights – the kind that no man or government can give or take away. They believe, again, that the law is based on what the ruling class thinks. That’s what autocracies and totalitarian regimes believe. I thought America was supposed to be different.

Levin lives in the upside down.

 

[FireDragon76]

District Court judges should not have and do not have national court powers. This is something in which Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch all agree.

District courts are the "national court". The Supreme Court only hears cases when they are sent up from the lower courts on appeal. That's how judicial review works in the US.

 

[RDKirk]

District courts are the "national court". The Supreme Court only hears cases when they are sent up from the lower courts on appeal. That's how judicial review works in the US.

They do hear cases directly when a government entities is suing another government entity: States suing states, state suing the feds, the feds suing a state.