BREAKING NEWS

[C-Mag]

Reports that Cohen will claim that Trump knew and approved of Russian meeting

[Okeefenokee]

[Ph64]

DACA was an Obama executive order... How does a judge force a recinded executive order to be restarted?

[C-Mag]

DACA was an Obama executive order... How does a judge force a recinded executive order to be restarted?

I absolutely don't get that either.

[Okeefenokee]

He can't.

[The Conservative]

He can't.

Actually, the courts can. Ever since Mass ruled gay marriage was legal and told the legislative branch to either rewrite the law of their ruling becomes law...

Which we know how that turned out. (Even though the people of Mass back then voted not to legalize gay marriage)

There is no reason why the same logic could not be held here. The judge is just using the ability given to them while under the Obama administration to create or change laws at the bench.

[Okeefenokee]

He can't.

Actually, the courts can. Ever since Mass ruled gay marriage was legal and told the legislative branch to either rewrite the law of their ruling becomes law...

Which we know how that turned out. (Even though the people of Mass back then voted not to legalize gay marriage)

There is no reason why the same logic could not be held here. The judge is just using the ability given to them while under the Obama administration to create or change laws at the bench.

No.

He can't.

Read more.

[The Conservative]

He can't.

Actually, the courts can. Ever since Mass ruled gay marriage was legal and told the legislative branch to either rewrite the law of their ruling becomes law...

Which we know how that turned out. (Even though the people of Mass back then voted not to legalize gay marriage)

There is no reason why the same logic could not be held here. The judge is just using the ability given to them while under the Obama administration to create or change laws at the bench.

No.

He can't.

Read more.

Then the gay marriage law is illegal.

[Ph64]

Actually, the courts can. Ever since Mass ruled gay marriage was legal and told the legislative branch to either rewrite the law of their ruling becomes law...

Which we know how that turned out. (Even though the people of Mass back then voted not to legalize gay marriage)

There is no reason why the same logic could not be held here. The judge is just using the ability given to them while under the Obama administration to create or change laws at the bench.

No.

He can't.

Read more.

Then the gay marriage law is illegal.

Actually no (imho).

Look, marriage was already a law in Mass (as in other states), the courts do have the right to look at existing laws for their constitutionality. If the decide an existing law is unconstitutional, recently passed or longstanding/historical and being challenged, then if they say that said law limiting marriage to a group of people (restricting gays for instance) is unconstitutional then they can demand the language be changed to make the law abide by the constitution ("equal for all" in that case).

If, on the other hand, Mass decides "ok then, we're just going to get rid of all marriage laws" (as some libertarians might like), Mass doesn't recognize marriage, issue marriage licences at all, etc... Well, imho there's nothing unconstitutional about that as far as I know - the lack of laws would treat everyone equally and as far as I know nothing in the constitution says that a state *must* issue marriage licenses or recognize it in any legal way?

Can the court then tell Mass that they *must* have a marriage law, issue licenses, provide any special recognition for marriage, etc? Imho the answer to that should be no - if there is no law to rule unconstitutional or otherwise flawed, then there's nothing for the court to oppose. You can't that there being no law about it restricts anyone's freedom, can you?

Or say affirmative action, which the courts ruled was legal to implement... But as far as I know the court never ruled that anyone *had* to implement (as a requirement from the court), only that it was legal to do so. It was an imposition *by* the court, it was from the legislature and challenged/approved by the court.

So when it comes to DACA, which was only an executive order and never really a law passed by congress, and now not even an executive order anymore... There's nothing for the court to challenge? Now, they can look at the immigration laws and say "hey, the law that DHS is using to deport illegals is unconstitutional", but to say that the court can *require* a new law (since its not one) to be passed - sounds dangerous to me, making laws is the realm of the legislature, not the courts.

The courts are there to interpret existing law, and while they might be able to strike down some parts of an existing law as unconstitutional, or even negate a law entirely (think Jim Crow laws), the court was never meant to create new laws. That power was given to the legislative branch, for good reason - giving the power to create laws to unelected officials whose term is "for life" starts sounding an awful lot like "royal rule"...

[Zlaxer]

http://abc7chicago.com/8-wounded-in-gre ... y/3886976/

63 people have been shot, ten fatally, since 5 p.m. Friday.

two gunman got out of a white Impala and shot four people at a block party in the 1600-block of South Avers Avenue at about 12:02 a.m. Later Sunday morning, Jahnae Patterson, 17, was killed and five other people wounded, including an 11-year-old boy in a shooting in the 1300-block of South Millard Avenue.