the first 2 headlines I saw today

[south ov da border]

http://logisticsmonster.com/2011/01/19/obama-signs-new-executive-order-congress-officially-

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110118.CL31921&show_article=1

what's in store? I think they are planning some "attack" or something of the sort...

[NYBURBS]

http://logisticsmonster.com/2011/01/19/obama-signs-new-executive-order-congress-officially-

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110118.CL31921&show_article=1

what's in store? I think they are planning some "attack" or something of the sort...

Am I missing something here?

First, I read through that executive order and it doesn't really strike me as outrageous in the least. He's ordering the officers of the executive branch to follow certain guidelines in administering the law, and that is part of his constitutional duties. The order actually states several times that any changes in policy must be in accordance with the law. Signing statements to disregard certain portions of laws are what trouble me, and both Bush and Obama have made use of those, but this is not one of those cases.

Second, that other link is basically a loon rant as best as I can tell. The Supreme Court has wide latitude on what cases they do or don't take up. Basically, they are only compelled to take a narrow range of cases such as a lawsuit by one state against another state. Review of lower court decisions is up to them, and has been since at least Taft was Chief Justice and the Judiciary Law of 1928 was passed. Even when they do take a case, they almost always accept the findings of fact from lower courts, it's only matters of interpreting law that they engage in.

[onmyknees]

Am I missing something here?

First, I read through that executive order and it doesn't really strike me as outrageous in the least. He's ordering the officers of the executive branch to follow certain guidelines in administering the law, and that is part of his constitutional duties. The order actually states several times that any changes in policy must be in accordance with the law. Signing statements to disregard certain portions of laws are what trouble me, and both Bush and Obama have made use of those, but this is not one of those cases.

Second, that other link is basically a loon rant as best as I can tell. The Supreme Court has wide latitude on what cases they do or don't take up. Basically, they are only compelled to take a narrow range of cases such as a lawsuit by one state against another state. Review of lower court decisions is up to them, and has been since at least Taft was Chief Justice and the Judiciary Law of 1928 was passed. Even when they do take a case, they almost always accept the findings of fact from lower courts, it's only matters of interpreting law that they engage in.

Agreed. I searched for the merits of this case for an hour and even called a freind who clerks for a Federal Judge. No one had any knowledged of this case other than it was denied. I think the republic and the constitution will withstand this !!!!!!!!!