The Role of the Judiciary in the Senate Fiasco.............

Let me be clear here that the Judiciary can hear cases before it involving the other branches of government if the constitution or statutes of the other branches of government are violated and a party to said conflict is seeking legal redress in a democratic society. The senate fiasco involving Protemp Nyenabo vs the majority is no exception. This is not what they call interference. This is call exercising your right within the confines of the rule of LAW.

The Judiciary interprets the LAW, The Executive enforces the LAW--But Ma Ellen is not during shitttttt...and the Legislators make LAW

bellah wrote:

--But Ma Ellen is not during shitttttt...and the Legislators make LAW

Explain it now???

bellah wrote:

--But Ma Ellen is not during shitttttt.

which country u've been in to make this remark.. oh yeah in america.. but dont hate Bellah cuz the woman is doing soemthing

LadyFlo wrote:

bellah wrote:

--But Ma Ellen is not during shitttttt.

which country u've been in to make this remark.. oh yeah in america.. but dont hate Bellah cuz the woman is doing soemthing

When it comes to the rule of law, Ma Ellen is not enforcing the decision of the Supreme Court especially when it is not in a favor. For example Snow vs the House of Representative. The Court rule that the Virginia setting of the House was illegal and Ma Ellen went there to address them thereby undermining the decision of the court. Until she can begin to be fair we are threading a dangerous path.

What you perceive as right is not always expedient. Does a Jehovah witness have the right to deny blood transfusion for a child because the child is in the Jehovah church?

If the child does not get the transfusion he/she may die.

bellah wrote:

LadyFlo wrote:

bellah wrote:

--But Ma Ellen is not during shitttttt.

which country u've been in to make this remark.. oh yeah in america.. but dont hate Bellah cuz the woman is doing soemthing

When it comes to the rule of law, Ma Ellen is not enforcing the decision of the Supreme Court especially when it is not in a favor. For example Snow vs the House of Representative. The Court rule that the Virginia setting of the House was illegal and Ma Ellen went there to address them thereby undermining the decision of the court. Until she can begin to be fair we are threading a dangerous path.

Do you believe the President is suppose to do everything? she cant please everyone and going to Virginia sure do not undermine any courts ruling.. and when u talk about enforcing Supreme Court decision.. Johnny Lewis is capable enough to get that done on his own...

Zunu, my brother it is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive to enforce the LAW. When the Law is intepreted by the Judiciary in term of a ruling by the court then it is the Executive right to enforce that decision be it infavor of them or not. The Legislative branch is not above the LAW.

The decision of Justice Wolokollie is a stay pending the full review of the supreme court. It is the responsibility of the Executive to enforce such decision of the high court. However the situation we find our selves in is that the Executive will only want to enforce a LAW when it is in their favor which is very dangerous for constitutional democracy. It brings to play a mockery of the Executive branch. The sepration of power doctrine will only stand the test of time if the rule of LAW is upheld.

If the senator had argue among themselves and nobody sue each other before the court then the Judiciary will not interfere. When there is an aggrieve party then it become a conflict and when there is lawsuit before the court then the court must act to avoid lawlessness. No branch of government is immune for legal action my friend. So each branch of Government mus t play their part for democratic fairness.