Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

slightlv

(2,870 posts)
12. This is one I have to break with Biden on
Mon Apr 10, 2023, 01:29 PM
Apr 2023

It's much more dangerous a precedent for a federal judge in a single, chosen court... especially one who has shown he has an agenda... to do what Kacsmaryk has done.

IMO, it's simply another step in the new Confederation of states to ignore the United States and it's laws and do whatever it wants to everyone. They've been doing this for so long now, it seems like no one is seeing it's simply a ramping up of ignoring laws and precedents. What's next? How many of our rights and civil liberties are we going to allow these theological judges to strip from us? Are we simply going to allow ourselves to become a sister state with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The only difference is in the name of the process. We don't do "Sharia" law. We do White Christianist Nationalist law. I, for one, am not willing to live under that. I don't understand why Biden won't take a stronger stand. I'm sorry, but as flawed as he was, I wish for an LBJ these days. Playing nice isn't going to cut it when the enemy has the knife to your throat. And just because it's us women who have the knives to our throats doesn't make it any less dangerous for everyone.

I do have a question, tho... if the ruling in Washington (?) was only for those states which brought the suit, then why wasn't Kaz's ruling only for those states whose attorneys general brought the suit? How can one court (not being the Supreme Court) rule for the entire United States? That really seems "off" to me -- like unethical, if not flat out illegal.

No, President Biden... this HAS to either be fought to a righteous conclusion or ignored. For pete's sake, we had 4 years where every law and statute was ignored that the right wing didn't like. It's time to enjoin the fight... not hold your head down and hope the institutions hold. WE are the institutions, but people like me don't have the power. That's why we elected you.

I really like Biden as a man, and as a president. In ordinary times, he'd be fantastic. And he's done well so far, but it seems like things are going off track. This "decision," and a few other environmental issues I've taken exception with. I'm not damning the man, he is MY president. But I do wish he (and the entire Democratic Congress) would present stronger against the right. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're just going to get run over.

And gods, before I read much more.... Caffeine!!!!! I'm barely ready to read "the news." (sigh)

I agree. OnDoutside Apr 2023 #1
The judge needs to be slammed and shut down. LiberalFighter Apr 2023 #2
Yes. The ruling is clearly wrong and defies precedent, but it would marybourg Apr 2023 #3
I like it republianmushroom Apr 2023 #4
I agree, but make no mistake... The Unmitigated Gall Apr 2023 #5
They are no doubt interested in the effort in Israel... WestMichRad Apr 2023 #16
Then why haven't they ever done it before? Polybius Apr 2023 #18
Because, in my opinion... The Unmitigated Gall Apr 2023 #24
The problem was our system was created to stop an evil person here or there RAB910 Apr 2023 #6
The fascists are offering anarchy... where the rule of law is wholly abandoned. WheelWalker Apr 2023 #7
This is less "following suit" and more "leading with an ace". n/t Igel Apr 2023 #40
Letting women die is a worse precedent. C_U_L8R Apr 2023 #8
For the moment that ruling does nothing ...... groundloop Apr 2023 #9
re:"that ruling does nothing--a second ruling--requires this medicine to stay on the market" thesquanderer Apr 2023 #36
More dangerous than women dying for no good reason? f_townsend Apr 2023 #10
Yes nt speak easy Apr 2023 #14
Yes RobinA Apr 2023 #34
What about the dangerous precedent set by the judge? Sanity Claws Apr 2023 #11
But they are gods, don'tchaknow peppertree Apr 2023 #13
This is one I have to break with Biden on slightlv Apr 2023 #12
I totally agree with you Iwasthere Apr 2023 #17
Yes, we vote... slightlv Apr 2023 #25
GOP judges setting national injunctions while Dem/neutral ones limit themselves is a weakness NullTuples Apr 2023 #30
No, ignoring the ruling sets the proper precedent Fiendish Thingy Apr 2023 #15
This!!! WestMichRad Apr 2023 #19
The argument is that Republican Presidents didn't ignore Roe (and later on Casey) Polybius Apr 2023 #22
Mostly agree, but.... luxmatic Apr 2023 #20
It almost feels like the Bannon faction did what they could to foment civil war quickly and now... NullTuples Apr 2023 #29
Oh, what damage rogue judges bucking for sainthood could do! Warpy Apr 2023 #21
Only problem is the establishment clause boundaries are determined by...SCOTUS NullTuples Apr 2023 #27
Ok, the legal states will ignore it. roamer65 Apr 2023 #23
The punchline is that Republicans ignore precedent anyway when it benefits them to do so. NullTuples Apr 2023 #26
The Supreme Court ignoring precedent is legal, however Polybius Apr 2023 #28
It may be legal, but they're dismantling generations of settled law on a whim. NullTuples Apr 2023 #31
Biden doesn't even have to ignore it; he could just slow walk FDA implementation...for a decade NullTuples Apr 2023 #32
Yes, it is. Igel Apr 2023 #41
So, some of you are saying that even though life will be more difficult and dangerous Magoo48 Apr 2023 #33
Yes RobinA Apr 2023 #35
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" samir.g Apr 2023 #37
And you want to defend that? Igel Apr 2023 #42
When do we start fighting this war? Voltaire2 Apr 2023 #38
Typical. Dems follow the law while repugs would disregard it SouthernDem4ever Apr 2023 #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden administration says...»Reply #12