Democrat judges are destroying the Democratic Party

[Care4all]

Do not forget Congress itself. As the body which created their positions, Congress has the authority to overrule their orders.

You got that now?

1. Congress creates/appoints district judges.
2. District judges usurp power of the presidency, something even the Supreme Court cannot do w/o at least 5 Justices.
3. But Congress, who is not above the president, merely co-equal, has the power to overrule these judges.

So, these district judges have more power than the President and Supreme Court, yet can be reigned in by a Congress with no more power than the president. Confused yet?

If the district court is wrong, then the executive wins on the appeal. That's how it works.

 

[toobfreak]

If the district court is wrong, then the executive wins on the appeal. That's how it works.

Wrong? You make it sound like all law is cut and dry like numbers on a ruler.
I love it when you post, I know I'm always in for a good laugh.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong? You make it sound like all law is cut and dry like numbers on a ruler.
I love it when you post, I know I'm always in for a good laugh.

It is constitutional, or unconstitutional.

 

[toobfreak]

No they aren't lunatics. They are actually doing their jobs,

DOING THEIR JOBS? Half of them have a personal, vested interest in the outcome and profit by their decisions.

 

[protectionist]

No they aren't lunatics. They are actually doing their jobs, without fear or favor, and questioning the constitutionality of the executive branch and its overreach of power over the other equal branches of govt. If they are wrong, it will be determined such on the appeal in a higher court.

That's how our judicial system has always worked.

Oh bullshit. They know damn well it is the Constitutional job of the president to do what he is doing, and not their job. They are just acting as soldiers fighting on the side of Democrats, against Trump and Republicans.

These clowns probably could not pass a test on the Constitution if their biased lives depended on it.

 

[Marener]

Wrong? You make it sound like all law is cut and dry like numbers on a ruler.
I love it when you post, I know I'm always in for a good laugh.

Law isn’t cut and dry at all.

But the issues of uncertainty are determined by judges. Not the president.

 

[toobfreak]

It is constitutional, or unconstitutional.

Great. There is no where in the Constitution even saying these 677 federal district judges should even exist, so their very being is unconstitutional.

 

[protectionist]

Law isn’t cut and dry at all.

But the issues of uncertainty are determined by judges. Not the president.

But the president determines the enforcement of federal laws, not the job of judges, who should shut up & mind their own business.

And there isn't any "uncertainty".

 

[Marener]

But the president determines the enforcement o federal laws, not the job of judges, who should shut up & mind their own business.

The judges determine if the president is operating within the bounds of the law.

This judge had doubt about this case that is before him. He put a hold on doing anything until we figure it out. It absolutely is his business.

This is normal.

The only thing abnormal here is the stance MAGA is taking.

 

[Marener]

Great. There is no where in the Constitution even saying these 677 federal district judges should even exist, so their very being is unconstitutional.

Could you dumb fucks actually read the constitution for once?

Article 3:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

[Care4all]

Oh bullshit. They know damn well it is the Constitutional job of the president to do what he is doing, and not their job. They are just acting as soldiers fighting on the side of Democrats, against Trump and Republicans.

These clowns probably could not pass a test on the Constitution if their biased lives depended on it.

It's not within the constitutional realm to change what congress has passed, and a president has signed, without the approval of congress for the executive cuts or changes or eliminating.

Bill Clinton cut hundreds of billions of dollars in federal govt agencies, but he did so, with congressional approval on all of his cuts.

Congress constitutionally holds the power of the purse, creating and dissolving agencies.

 

[toobfreak]

But the president determines the enforcement of federal laws, not the job of judges, who should shut up & mind their own business.

Here is a map of all state boundaries, circuit court and federal district court boundaries of jurisdiction.

I wish some democrat here would point out to me which federal district court here has jurisdiction over the POTUS, over immigration, over birthright citizenship, or on where planes can fly deporting criminals out of the country that supersedes the president and the entire country?

 

[skye]

 

[konradv]

I can remember when you loons loved Musk. He had your green energy going on. He was praised, even by Obama. Then he bought twitter and gave everyone a voice. Now you loons want to deport him, who is being a facist?

Elon shouldn’t have pissed off his best customers. That’s bad business! I guess MAGA’s going to have to pick up the slack and swap F-150s for Cybertrucks. Charge, baby, charge!

 

[toobfreak]

Bill Clinton cut hundreds of billions of dollars in federal govt agencies, but he did so, with congressional approval on all of his cuts.

Do please link us to the documentation on where he cut hundreds of billions in government agencies and how the congress gave him their approval.

 

[konradv]

Trump is fighting DNC courts' Marxism.

You’re boring!

 

[protectionist]

The judges determine if the president is operating within the bounds of the law.

This judge had doubt about this case that is before him. He put a hold on doing anything until we figure it out. It absolutely is his business.

This is normal.

The only thing abnormal here is the stance MAGA is taking.

Chuck Schumer said Democrats would use the courts to stop Trump. He didn't say anything about the "bounds of the law"

Then we have 89 blockages of Trump actions (IN 2 MONTHS) - more than Biden had in 4 YEARS. This is biased, partisan politics at its worst. Democrats go by the notion of BAMN (by any means necessary)

 

[protectionist]

Could you dumb fucks actually read the constitution for once?

Article 3:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

That's nice.
Now post something relevant to this discussion/topic.

 

[konradv]

Chuck Schumer said Democrats would use the courts to stop Trump. He didn't say anything about the "bounds of the law"

Then we have 89 blockages of Trump actions (IN 2 MONTHS) - more than Biden had in 4 YEARS. This is biased, partisan politics at its worst. Democrats go by the notion of BAMN (by any means necessary)

Sounds like 89 bad acts.

 

[protectionist]

Sounds like 89 bad acts.

Deporting hundreds of killers, rapists, home invaders, armed robbers are "bad acts" ? And calling them that, is why Democrats got their asses handed to them last November.