FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-27-11 02:34 AM
Original message |
| Poll question: Did Jim Crow laws, for example, deserve a defense in court? |
| Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-27-11 02:44 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. It is the job of a JUDGE to rule laws unconstitutional, not attorneys. |
|
Our judicial system is set up to hear 'both' sides of a case, then have a ruling by judge/jury.
|
| IScreamSundays
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-27-11 02:55 AM
Original message |
| All laws are subject to a constitutional challenge by a |
| IScreamSundays
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-27-11 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-27-11 02:58 AM by IScreamSundays
|
| Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-27-11 06:14 AM
Response to Original message |
| 3. There is no reason why the executive branch has to defend |
|
the constitutionality of a law it believes is unconstitutional. Boner's attempt to try to corral funds from the executive branch for his defense of DOMA is odd, to say the least. I don't even see how the House of Representatives has standing, let alone funding for its actions in this case.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Mon Apr 15th 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
