The exec branch is at war with the judiciary.

[westwall]

That's rich coming from a person (whom I'm giving the benefit of that doubt) whose entire worldview could fit on a bumper sticker.

Yeah, it can. "Treat others as you would like to be treated."

Covers pretty much everything. Little baby you are too emotionally unstable to understand.

 

[Rumpole]

Tell us why the democrats judge shop among the same partisan lib hacks when they seek to block trump

These are not “ Reasonable minds (that) can--and do--disagree.“

Democrats appointed the judge and they know in advance what the ruling is going to be

Tell us, Westwall--do you ask this question because you’re uninformed, or because you think we are? Trump didn’t just judge shop--he treated Judge Tipton’s Texas courtroom like his personal legal vending machine. Filed case after case there, jamming the same button hoping it’d spit out another ruling stamped Made in MAGA. And spare us the ‘partisan lib hacks’ routine--both parties have done it for decades. The difference is, when Democrats do it, it’s usually to defend civil rights or stop executive overreach. When Trump does it, it’s to sabotage democracy and get cover from cronies in robes. So if you’re going to wail about judge shopping, learn how the game works--before you start whining like a fan who just figured out the rules after the scoreboard lit up

 

[Lisa558]

He was here legally seeking asylum.

Who did the hairdresser harm?

That asylum shit is a bunch of crap.

 

[Marener]

That asylum shit is a bunch of crap.

You trying to call him a gang member is crap.

 

[Lisa558]

You trying to call him a gang member is crap.

When a foreigner comes into this country illegally and claiming “asylum” (they’re almost all bogus), he should want to show that he would be an asset to their country - not a gang member with gang tats plastered all over.

We have much better people to worry about - law-abiding Americans who are being harmed by the presence of illegals.

Naturally, you side with illegal foreigners. As I recall, you are defending the Muslim from Syrian promoting HAMAS propaganda on a campus already rife with Jew-hate.

You are ALWAYS on the wrong side of things. Thank Gd wiser minds prevailed, and you people lost.

 

[Rumpole]

Yeah, it can. "Treat others as you would like to be treated."

Covers pretty much everything. Little baby you are too emotionally unstable to understand.

You quote ‘treat others as you would like to be treated’--while your sig line is a threat-laced fever dream about killing entire families. That’s not just hypocrisy, Westwall, it’s a Cirque du Soleil act in moral self-contradiction. You don't live by the Golden Rule--you graffiti it, spit on it, then staple it to a manifesto. If this is your idea of virtue, no wonder you think empathy is weakness and decency is for suckers. We’re not dealing with a philosopher here--we’re dealing with a keyboard tough guy cosplaying as Confucius while quoting Rambo.

Mediocrity becomes you.

 

[Coyote]

He was here legally seeking asylum.

Who did the hairdresser harm?

Criminalizing people purely on the basis of tattoos is pretty dangerous territory.

 

[Stann]

You're showing us your Public School edumucashun now. The ONLY people who say the Judiciary is co-eqaual is -- The Judiciary.

The Constitution doesn't say it. Anywhere

The three branches may be equal in status only but not where it counts -- In power.

Here, read something other than the latest Marvel Comic Book for a change --

Project MUSE - The Myth of Coequal Branches

muse.jhu.edu

The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers.

Our Black-Robed activists are about to learn this simple fact the hard way. They have no power over Congress and, especially, over the Executive Branch. It's all bluster. Bluff.

If The Founders had intended for them to have the power you were taught they have by your Grade School Teacher, they woud have been given an enforcement arm. Instead, they have to ask the Executive Branch, nicely, to enforce their silly-assed decisions.

And the Executive is getting tired of their bullshit.

The Judiciary has overstepped its authority. Bigly. And if SCOTUS doesn't jerk their leash back, hard, the entire Judiciary, and our Republic, will suffer.

There is no way our Founders expected any one of 677 District Court assholes to have the power to block POTUS. No fucking way. That should be obvious even to someone as narcissistic as you

Only when they don't totally agree with trump. And that will surely become more and more often.

 

[BackAgain]

Mediocrity becomes you.

you aspire to someday making it all the way up to mediocrity, DumpHole.

 

[Marener]

When a foreigner comes into this country illegally and claiming “asylum” (they’re almost all bogus), he should want to show that he would be an asset to their country - not a gang member with gang tats plastered all over.

We have much better people to worry about - law-abiding Americans who are being harmed by the presence of illegals.

Naturally, you side with illegal foreigners. As I recall, you are defending the Muslim from Syrian promoting HAMAS propaganda on a campus already rife with Jew-hate.

You are ALWAYS on the wrong side of things. Thank Gd wiser minds prevailed, and you people lost.

I’m on the side of the constitution. You’re more a threat to the country than a hairdresser because of your willingness to abandon constitutional rights let alone human rights.

 

[Rumpole]

When a foreigner comes into this country illegally and claiming “asylum” (they’re almost all bogus), he should want to show that he would be an asset to their country - not a gang member with gang tats plastered all over.

We have much better people to worry about - law-abiding Americans who are being harmed by the presence of illegals.

Naturally, you side with illegal foreigners. As I recall, you are defending the Muslim from Syrian promoting HAMAS propaganda on a campus already rife with Jew-hate.

You are ALWAYS on the wrong side of things. Thank Gd wiser minds prevailed, and you people lost.

Lisa--your grasp of immigration law is as loose as your grip on historical perspective. Asylum isn't some beauty contest for who looks most 'American.' It’s granted based on credible fear of persecution--something enshrined in both U.S. and international law, not your personal prejudice. Gang tattoos don’t void due process, any more than a Stars and Bars bumper sticker voids yours.

You say we should worry about 'law-abiding Americans'--and yet undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. But facts, of course, are foreign to you--ironically, the one kind of foreigner you don’t want deported.

As for your triumphant gloating--'thank God wiser minds prevailed'--let’s pause to savor the math. Your side eked out a paltry victor margin of 1.5%, led by a black woman candidate with just over three months to campaign. That’s not a red wave; that’s a pink drizzle. And let’s not forget: the GOP has only won the popular vote twice in the last 30 years. If that’s divine intervention, God clearly works part-time.

If standing up for human rights and the Constitution puts someone on the 'wrong side,' then write it in ink--we’ll wear it like a badge. You, on the other hand, have confused petty spite with patriotism and think a sneer counts as civic virtue.

It doesn’t.

 

[Marener]

Criminalizing people purely on the basis of tattoos is pretty dangerous territory.

No joke. It’s even worse than criminalizing people based on their political ideology, which Lisa558 also supports.

 

[Lisa558]

Lisa--your grasp of immigration law is as loose as your grip on historical perspective. Asylum isn't some beauty contest for who looks most 'American.' It’s granted based on credible fear of persecution--something enshrined in both U.S. and international law, not your personal prejudice. Gang tattoos don’t void due process, any more than a Stars and Bars bumper sticker voids yours.

You say we should worry about 'law-abiding Americans'--and yet undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. But facts, of course, are foreign to you--ironically, the one kind of foreigner you don’t want deported.

As for your triumphant gloating--'thank God wiser minds prevailed'--let’s pause to savor the math. Your side eked out a paltry victor margin of 1.5%, led by a black woman candidate with just over three months to campaign. That’s not a red wave; that’s a pink drizzle. And let’s not forget: the GOP has only won the popular vote twice in the last 30 years. If that’s divine intervention, God clearly works part-time.

If standing up for human rights and the Constitution puts someone on the 'wrong side,' then write it in ink--we’ll wear it like a badge. You, on the other hand, have confused petty spite with patriotism and think a sneer counts as civic virtue.

It doesn’t.

The vast majority of asylum claims are bogus, and the system is being exploited because the Dems want America transformed into a third-world hellhole.

I stand up for the rights of Americans not to suffer the damage from illegal aliens.

 

[Lisa558]

No joke. It’s even worse than criminalizing people based on their political ideology, which Lisa558 also supports.

^^^ says the lib who was rooting to imprison Trump for life because he thought the election was fraudulent.

 

[Rumpole]

Trump is following the COTUS to the letter. The judges are not. That's why they keep getting overruled.

I suggest you follow your own advice, your infantile wailing, while amusing, does nothing.

Trump is following the Constitution to the letter”? That’s rich. The man treats the Constitution like he treats NDAs, subpoenas, and wives--binding for everyone else, optional for him.

And your claim that judges being ‘overruled’ proves they’re wrong? Only someone with a Wikipedia-level understanding of law could make that leap. Reversals happen all the time in good-faith jurisprudence. It’s not proof of error--it’s proof that law, unlike autocracy, allows for disagreement.

But let’s talk about your favorite kind of ruling--those handed down by the Supreme Court you believe validates Trump’s every whim. You mean the same handpicked bench where at least four justices have abandoned any pretense of constitutional fidelity to invent legal doctrines from whole cloth--like ‘absolute immunity for a president’? Show me where that’s in the Constitution. You can’t. Because it isn’t. It was pulled, surgically and shamelessly, from the rear cavity of political cowardice.

And why? Because they fear him. They know full well an autocrat has no use for a Supreme Court. Play your judicial cards wrong, and you're next on the chopping block. These rulings aren’t constitutional interpretation--they’re hostage notes wrapped in legalese. So no, your smug refrain of 'they're always overruled' doesn’t carry the weight you think it does. When the court is playing defense against a would-be tyrant, its rulings aren't gospel--they’re compromise under duress.

So spare me the ‘Trump the constitutionalist’ fairy tale. He’s a one-man wrecking ball with a Twitter handle (ok, truth social, or rather, 'lies social'), and if you think he reveres the Constitution, you’re confusing it with the menu at the steakhouse where he charges the Secret Service $1,200 a night.

Keep clinging to your legal delusions. I’ll keep reading the Constitution--as it’s written, not as rewritten by cowards in robes.

 

[Rumpole]

The vast majority of asylum claims are bogus, and the system is being exploited because the Dems want America transformed into a third-world hellhole.

I stand up for the rights of Americans not to suffer the damage from illegal aliens.

Hmmm, tsk tsk. Your claim that 'the vast majority of asylum claims are bogus' is not just false--it’s the kind of falsehood that thrives in echo chambers where facts go to die. The legal bar for asylum is high. Applicants must prove credible fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It’s not a free-for-all, and it never has been. But if your only source is Facebook memes and Tucker monologues, no wonder you think due process is a loophole.

As for your melodramatic prophecy about Democrats wanting to turn America into a 'third-world hellhole'--that’s not analysis. That’s nativist fan fiction, suitable only for the comment section of a Breitbart article already flagged for misinformation.

You ‘stand up for Americans’? Please. If you cared about American lives, you'd support immigration reform that brings people out of the shadows, cracks down on traffickers, and secures borders without turning this country into a bureaucratic meat grinder for desperate human beings. But you’re not here to fix the system--you’re here to sneer at the people caught in it.

What you call 'damage' from immigrants, I call projection. The greatest harm to this nation isn’t from people fleeing war zones. It’s from people who can't distinguish a fact from a slogan, and who think cruelty is a substitute for policy.

You’re not standing up for anything. You’re standing in the way."

 

[westwall]

Y

Trump is following the Constitution to the letter”? That’s rich. The man treats the Constitution like he treats NDAs, subpoenas, and wives--binding for everyone else, optional for him.

And your claim that judges being ‘overruled’ proves they’re wrong? Only someone with a Wikipedia-level understanding of law could make that leap. Reversals happen all the time in good-faith jurisprudence. It’s not proof of error--it’s proof that law, unlike autocracy, allows for disagreement.

But let’s talk about your favorite kind of ruling--those handed down by the Supreme Court you believe validates Trump’s every whim. You mean the same handpicked bench where at least four justices have abandoned any pretense of constitutional fidelity to invent legal doctrines from whole cloth--like ‘absolute immunity for a president’? Show me where that’s in the Constitution. You can’t. Because it isn’t. It was pulled, surgically and shamelessly, from the rear cavity of political cowardice.

And why? Because they fear him. They know full well an autocrat has no use for a Supreme Court. Play your judicial cards wrong, and you're next on the chopping block. These rulings aren’t constitutional interpretation--they’re hostage notes wrapped in legalese. So no, your smug refrain of 'they're always overruled' doesn’t carry the weight you think it does. When the court is playing defense against a would-be tyrant, its rulings aren't gospel--they’re compromise under duress.

So spare me the ‘Trump the constitutionalist’ fairy tale. He’s a one-man wrecking ball with a Twitter handle (ok, truth social, or rather, 'lies social'), and if you think he reveres the Constitution, you’re confusing it with the menu at the steakhouse where he charges the Secret Service $1,200 a night.

Keep clinging to your legal delusions. I’ll keep reading the Constitution--as it’s written, not as rewritten by cowards in robes.

Yeah, to the letter. I've actually read the Constitution.

Clearly you haven't.

 

[Marener]

^^^ says the lib who was rooting to imprison Trump for life because he thought the election was fraudulent.

Trump was entitled to and getting due process.

You support making undesirables disappear into foreign gulags because you’ve been told to be afraid. You’re a threat to the nation.

 

[BS Filter]

Trump was entitled to and getting due process.

You support making undesirables disappear into foreign gulags because you’ve been told to be afraid. You’re a threat to the nation.

Bullshit. We are making America safer and democrats are now resisting the will of the American people who voted for this. The democrat party is the enemy within and they're going to lose even more ground. Watch.

 

[Mac-7]

Tell us, Westwall--do you ask this question because you’re uninformed, or because you think we are? Trump didn’t just judge shop--he treated Judge Tipton’s Texas courtroom like his personal legal vending machine. Filed case after case there, jamming the same button hoping it’d spit out another ruling stamped Made in MAGA. And spare us the ‘partisan lib hacks’ routine--both parties have done it for decades. The difference is, when Democrats do it, it’s usually to defend civil rights or stop executive overreach. When Trump does it, it’s to sabotage democracy and get cover from cronies in robes. So if you’re going to wail about judge shopping, learn how the game works--before you start whining like a fan who just figured out the rules after the scoreboard lit up

If you think what trump may have done with Judge Tipton excuses the democrats now you are mistaken

With the dems this has very little to do with civil rights and everything to do with winning future elections