quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/13/1712431/jim-bridenstine-supreme-court/

The video is attached. And you will notice I placed no slant upon this from the article. And, frankly, Im not sure what he is exactly saying here. Sounds like he is saying that even though the SC rules one way, Congress can override that ruling with a law of their own.

Anyone else's take?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

What their argument comes down to, at bottom, is if they don't agree with a law, it's wrong; and if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, they are wrong too. There is a technical term for this: anarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

What their argument comes down to, at bottom, is if they don't agree with a law, it's wrong; and if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, they are wrong too. There is a technical term for this: anarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Nope. It's only civil disobedience if they actively break the law. If they only complain about it, it's just whining, which I argue is granted to us under Freedom of Speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You are clueless as usual.