A judge, and was briefly chief justice of an intermediary court filling an unexpired term. And that is my understanding. But I also know the gentleman from California was the highest ranking legal officer in the State of California and very articulately has set out his, as well as my, understanding. But I am curious as to the gentleman's opinion of whether or not this really meets constitutional muster. Nobody knows what the Supreme Court would do. Some project maybe 5 or 6 years before it got there, since we were unsuccessful in getting any fast track in the House version or the Senate version.
Louie Gohmert: “A judge, and was briefly chief justice of an intermediary court filling an unexpired term. And that is my understanding.…”
Editor's note · Context
Gohmert discusses the constitutional implications of a legal matter and the potential timeline for Supreme Court review.
Share
More from Louie Gohmert
It is always an honor and a privilege to have a chance to address the House. There is so much that is so critically important going on these days, especially this week, and I wanted the chance to address those. I have a friend from Texas…
Look, 4,155 pages, and that doesn't include the couple of thousand pages of explanation, definition, and all this other stuff. At least with ObamaCare, 2,500 pages, we had time to go through it. I did. I read it, highlighted, made notes…
I am so grateful to my fellow Texan, and I am not saying that lightly, dear friend, with whom a lot of battles have been fought for organizing this Special Order. And I can also honestly say that in my 18 years here I have never been more…
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No…





