One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Judge Sulluvan vs Justice Ginsburg...
May 16, 2020 05:14:36   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-sullivan-vs-justice-ginsburg-11589498942

Reply
May 16, 2020 05:34:59   #
Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA
 
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search

What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”

Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0a

Reply
May 16, 2020 07:34:18   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
Ferrous wrote:
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search

What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”

Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0a
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did... (show quote)


Apparently even they believe they have gotten out of hand.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2020 08:01:56   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Ferrous wrote:
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did read the article by doing a quick search

What Justice Ginsberg was ruling is that: " In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them."

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for d**gons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”

Justice Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee, like Judge Sullivan... Judges have to be stopped from Legislating from the Bench.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#109ff8c06f0a
The link wanted me to sign up for the WSJ... I did... (show quote)


It's a corrupt judge, no doubt!

Reply
May 25, 2020 08:03:15   #
Radiance3
 
proud republican wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-sullivan-vs-justice-ginsburg-11589498942

==============
Judge Sullivan is an ally of Obama. He is trying to complicate the matter without legal authority to hold the Gen. Flynn's verdict. He is Obama's defense at this time when all of Obama's C**PE conspirators are under investigation by Durham , and now the Senate also are in that process.

Sullivan has no shame on his position. He hired a new lawyer to handle the matter with Gen. Flynn. Why is he doing this?

I have mentioned at the BEGINNING that he could not override the authority of the Executive Branch. Sullivan broke he law. He is a lawless judge with no shame! Even SC Justice Ginsburg does not agree with him.

Reply
May 25, 2020 16:35:26   #
Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA
 
bilordinary wrote:
Apparently even they believe they have gotten out of hand.


I'll believe that after I see how many of them v**e for Quid Quo Pro Joe..

Or even worse, come out from behind that curtain in the polling booth and publicly support Sleepy Joe.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.