ST Alpha - "(And your definition for what it’s worth is not exact because you don’t need a court to pass judgment to determine legality)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 151

In response to "I don't see how I'm wrong in saying if the House/Senate/CJ decide it's legal, then it is legal. -- (edited)" by Max

(And your definition for what it’s worth is not exact because you don’t need a court to pass judgment to determine legality)

Posted by JackDawson (aka dawson) Sep 25 '19, 13:37

Otherwise lawyers would never be able to advice client “yes your course of action is legal”

Courts determine legality in the context of disputes only, congress actually determine law prospectively and the executive does so by execution (this point may not be germane to this particular discussion but I thought it worth mentioning before we get too reductive into the definition of “legal”)

Responses:

understood, I was thinking in terms of Constitutional outcomes. -- nm - Max Sep 25, 13:40 3
- By the way before the house voted on articles of impeachment the house’s lawyers and likely the individual reps’ lawyers will give advice as to legali - JackDawson Sep 25, 13:48 2
  - sure, and the precedent is there that some lawyer told McConnell he didn't have to hold a hearing for Obama's nominee. - Max Sep 25, 13:56 1
    - But again that example is not at all apples and oranges - JackDawson Sep 25, 14:04

Post a message top

(And your definition for what it’s worth is not exact because you don’t need a court to pass judgment to determine legality)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.