Talk:Federal court ruling

message: This really should be a stub. It needs more research, to determine whether this is just a Liberal POV, e.g., advocated by the liberal ACLU - or is well-established fact. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now this looks like it's about the same thing as Judicial review in the United States.  Also I'm not quite happy with the bold assertion that "Thus, in the Separation of Powers, any of the 10 district court judges has absolute authority over the president"- this seems to be overstating the case a bit. Friday (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

message: I removed this for now:
If the President wants to appeal such a ruling to the Supreme Court, he may, but until then the ruling has the force of law. If he orders a subordinate to disobey it, that subordinate is subject to immediate arrest.
:I don't believe this is very accurate- the president, like anyone else, would need legal standing- I'm not aware that he already has is by virtue of being president, which this seems to imply.
Thus, in the Separation of Powers, any of the 10 district court judges has absolute authority over the president - subject only to the review of the Supreme Court.
:Calling this "absolute authority over the president" is stretching things.  Don't we really just mean that the president is not automatically immune to all federal law just because he's president?   This might be a topic for executive immunity, but I guess there's no article on that, specifically.  Friday (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple sentences removed 

message: For the reasons stated in the response to Uncle Ed, above, I am proposing again that this article be deleted.  Please do not simply come behind me and remove the tag.  Rather, the tag should remain and discussion should be had in the Talk forum.
As it stands, it is my opinion that this article and the stated reasons for its existence reflect a general misunderstanding of the law and of our tripartite system of government.  The questions sought to be answered by this article simply cannot be answered in the vacuum of this article.  Rather, they are subsidiary questions arising out of the very nature of federalism and our system of separation of powers.  This article simply is grossly over-simplistic in what it is attempting to do.  I'm happy to discuss this opinion further.
*The place to discuss deletion of the article is WP:AFD, not here; follow that link for instructions on procedure. The proposed deletion tag is only for uncontested deletions, so it shouldn't be replaced in the article once anyone has removed it - see WP:PROD. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deletion Proposal 

message: Maybe what we need is a disambig page, something like this ...
Federal court ruling can refer to 
* a decision or order made by a federal court
** such as any of the United States federal courts
See also:
* Judicial review
** Judicial review in the United States
* Separation of powers
I'd like to do whatever I can to help our readers overcome their misunderstanding of US law and the American tripartite system of government. Perhaps this is covered better in Civics? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation Proposal