The Supreme Court Is Acting In A Backwards And Biased If Not Retarded Way By Not Upholding Lower Courts: The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a...

woodguru

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

Smedley_buzkill

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

Yep. Requiring tamper proof ID is sooooo Raaaaaaciiiiiiiiiiist.

Liberty Tree

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

Yep. Requiring tamper proof ID is sooooo Raaaaaaciiiiiiiiiiist.

He is just mad because the lower court leftist judges are being reined in.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

Funny how you don't feel that way when the court rules with you!

Gatsby

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

"you" disagree with the SCOTUS, so the SCOTUS is wrong, and "you" are

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

microphor wrote:

Funny how you don't feel that way when the court rules with you!

Well damn !
When was that ?
I might have missed it ?
The SC today has a job to do.
It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human form.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Milosia2 wrote:

Well damn !
When was that ?
I might have missed it ?
The SC today has a job to do.
It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human form.

Your ramblings are getting worse, seek help immediately.

Gatsby

Milosia2 wrote:

Well damn !
When was that ?
I might have missed it ?
The SC today has a job to do.
It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human form.

Your sarcasm is as dull as your wit.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

With all the illegal actions of the democrats, the SCOTUS has it hands full and will take cases as their superior intellect and knowledge over your opinions, dictates.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Milosia2 wrote:

Well damn !
When was that ?
I might have missed it ?
The SC today has a job to do.
It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human form.

***It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human formConstitution of the United States.

>>>The other 364 days of the year they protect the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. But even the rich deserve their day in court.

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

Hey 'Wooden head".....What America "needs"...[ according to so many *Demoncrat political stooges ]....is "More Trannies, gender confused, immoral Supreme court Justices? Like Obama appointed in Kagan, & Sota Meier? ? ? ?

You serious? ? ? ? really? ? ? ?

River Reb Loc: MS Delta

microphor wrote:

Your ramblings are getting worse, seek help immediately.

Or jump off a tall building.

The Ms.

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

Yada Yada Yada💤💤💤

teabag09

woodguru wrote:

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended) has been operating in a totally backwards way from what is intended in emergency cases where lower courts are halting unconstitutional actions by state elections officials as well as abortion and other topics.

When an unconstitutional action is challenged in the court system, the logical action by a court that agrees that something is likely unconstitutional is to stop that action before it does harm, and it can be put to the constitutionality challenge. It would not make sense for a court to allow a new and questionable law to take effect to where it would affect an upcoming election.

We are seeing courts at state and federal level that are properly stopping unconstitutional actions, states are putting stops, and when they are appealed to federal courts they are agreeing and maintaining that position...only to have the supreme court act in the interim period before a full supreme court case can settle the matter of constitutionality by reversing the proper stays of the lower courts to say the unconstitutional action can take place.

Apparently they are taking the truly backwards and mentally retarded view that by preventing the constitutionally illegal action it would alter an upcoming election it would be an improper overreach...Duh, that is why it is before the courts is to keep an unconstitutional overreach from affecting an election.

Texas makes the case, by trying to make it harder to vote they are violating constitutional voter rights. Court steps in and says we agree, no you are not going to do this. Texas takes it before a federal court, only to get the same logical and expected result...

The supreme court sees it, and not having time to properly hear the case, instead of supporting lower court holds on the illegal actions, says sure go ahead, being prevented from doing this would affect the upcoming election.

The supreme court is there to protect the constitution and especially voting rights, and they have been instead undermining voters rights at every turn by allowing states to make it harder to vote. GOP friendly courts are not observing the first rule of determining whether a new rule is an unconstitutional action....make the ones that want the change make the case that there is a reason for the change in the first place.

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-voting/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

The supreme court (lower case disrespect intended)... (show quote)

If that is your opinion then they are definitely doing the right thing!!! Mike

son of witless

Milosia2 wrote:

Well damn !
When was that ?
I might have missed it ?
The SC today has a job to do.
It’s sole purpose is to protect the rich and powerful corporations from any damage that might come from any of their underhanded , polluting , dangerous means of producing lethal chemicals that may be guilty of the annihilation of the human form.

The corporations support your party. That is unquestioned.