Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe they voted 7-0 she had no authority under the 1976 act.
|
I think there was a 4-3 vote that one of the statutes she was applying was unconstitutional, and another 4-3 (judges splitting a different way) vote against her on statutory interpretation.
Quote:
|
And I really don't get your focus on a court not simply accepting an act of congress as being somehow wrong. Do you not believe Roe v. Wade is good law? Ty, I ask you, do you disagree with Marbury v. Madison?
|
No, but I see a lot of Republicans prone to legislating from the bench.
Quote:
|
As to the constitutional q, the law was unconstitutional BECAUSE THE COURT SAID IT WAS. I know you understand that?
|
I get that. My point is, a slim majority from the political party antagonistic to the governor decided that (excuse me, SAID IT WAS) several decades after the law was passed. When a statute has fundamental constitutional problems, it is more commonly noticed much earlier.
Quote:
|
edit: Ty, you seem to think the act did/could give her absolute authority to define "emergency?" Does Trump have any emergency powers? Are you comfortable with his definition?
|
If Trump has emergency powers given to him by statute -- for example, to spend money that Congress appropriated for one thing on a completely different thing, like a wall, because he says it's an emergency -- and a court upholds those powers, it's on Congress to change the law. Or are you making a constitutional argument of some sort? Not sure what you are trying to say.
I'm not familiar with the Michigan constitution, so can't say whether Whitmer's position was right. I can say that (a) the fact that she got three of the seven justices to support her, and (b) the fact that the statute deemed unconstitutional had been around for decades without being deemed unconstitutional, both suggest that her position was not crazy. Doesn't sound authoritarian to me.
