Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
They did the lawfare for eight years without that excuse. What will be different when they are back in power the next time?
The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
Don't flatter yourself. I'm not arguing with you.
Not a ******* thing. It'll be the same shitshow every cycle. Until we collectively grow some backbone as a nation, and tell both parties to suck a tailpipe, we'll continue to slide into the shitter.
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Sure.
But in the real world in which there are Republicans and Democrats, and Democrat policies are extremely harmful to the United States, how would you tell Republicans to respond to the Democrats' lawfare of the last 8 years?
I'll ask this question of all Democrats and "not Democrats:" Would you prefer we return to Biden-level illegal border crossings? What about the levels allowed by the failed "bi-partisan border bill?" Are you still wishing that had been passed, so we could have 5K+ illegal crossings per day?
Pass legislation. Like grown ups. And get over the victimhood routine. It's tiresome.
I'd prefer all the culture warriors from both parties were loaded up on Musk's rockets and sent to Mars. There they can battle it out and leave the rest of us alone.
I know it's important to MAGA to get their revenge. But I can't care. Their revenge is destroying the country.
whitehall
Diamond Member
Democrats invented "separation of Church/State" that did not exist in the Constitution, they continue to question the validity of the 2nd Amendment and they invented a "right to privacy" to justify the murder of the unborn. Now they lecture us about birthright citizenship. No surprise here.
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Okay.
What legislation do you envision that will stop the kind of lawfare we've had for the last eight years?
Not revenge. Consequences.
The Democrats will never negotiate seriously if they are free to continue the warfare without consequences.
Without consequences, the Democrats will simply go after the Republican Frontrunner, with more blue state prosecutions, starting as soon as that frontrunner is identified. That's why Leticia James and Alvin Bragg must be invesigated and prosecuted now.
Few people will vote for open borders and male transgeders in women's sports, so they have to tear down their opponents. Instead of running toward the middle, as they always have after a loss to the GOP, Democrats are doubling down on the radical wokeness.
Listen. This entire argument boils down to - "They cheated, so now WE get to cheat!"
It's childish and destructive and a cycle that will never end as long as the two-party system continues unabated.
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 11,412
- 5,490
- 400
Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new...www.archives.gov
In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...t-partial-stay-in-birthright-citizenship-case
As is the case in many instances where the founding documents come in to play, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.
The thing about the Roberts court is in previous rulings it has gone beyond the scope of the case before it to put its radically conservative, ideological stamp on the matter at hand. Naturally, in this case they did not rule on the constitutionality of Dotard's EO since it has no hope of surviving scrutiny on those grounds.
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
Despite the fact that the question before them was limited to whether federal trial court judges can issue injunctions that apply nationwide, the justices seemed incapable of distinguishing between that question and the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. In fact, that difficulty demonstrates the fallacy behind trying to limit or do away with nationwide injunctions because the underlying issue is always inextricably interwoven with whether an injunction is needed.
Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum. Rather, it only further highlights the problems raised at oral argument — with the conservative majority focusing only on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, while the liberal minority dissents accuse the majority of turning a blind-eye to the potentially blatant illegality of Trump’s executive order.
In a coldly beautiful piece of legal writing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett manages to capture the votes of all of the conservative justices with a deep dive into the history of the 1789 Judiciary Act. She concludes that in 1789, there was no contemplation of nationwide injunctions and, thus, using them likely exceeds the authority of the federal courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent — joined by Justice Elana Kagan, accuses the majority of enabling legal “gamesmanship” by the Trump administration that makes it so that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” In a separate, even more blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the majority gives the executive branch “permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
The conservative wing of the court overly relies on the emergency shadow docket and shouldn't have entertained the administration's birthright argument.www.msnbc.com
And your point is?
Who on here knew that....DERberghof was a subversive twit? Who knew that MACAFLOOZY was UNLUCKYDUCKY in El Disguisy, and used UNLUCKY ducky to hide the fact that he is a LEFTIST to his core on USMB?
All of you LEFTISTS are phony as the day is long, and if it wasn't for you responding to each other with your socks, you would never make any money off your 2 or 3 cents per post, hahahahahahahahahahaha! Wonder if the DNC knows they are paying a circle jerk to yank each other for cash-)
Never fear, we shall tell them! No need to thank us, we are doing it for the integrity of the DEMOCRATS, run by AOC, Ilhan, Punklosi, Shmucky, Jazzy Crock-of-sh**, and the rest of your pathetic crew-) We are doing more to save Democrats than you pathetic pieces of excrement are, so cya, wouldn't want to be ya-)
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Nothing like that. You are mistating my argument, because you have no answers for my actual argument.
I didn't call it "cheating" but I have to agree that it was. In the sense it was "cheating" when Nancy Kerrigan had her leg broken before a competition. Did you favor any consequences for the leg breaker or did you think that it would only lead to escalation?
Did you excoriate both sides that one also?
Why did you propose legislation as the answer, if you had no idea what such legislation would look like?
No. I'm not. It's revenge. Pure and simple.
I knew this would happen. I spelled it out for Dems in very clear direct language. I knew that, regardless of the merits of the case, the legal prosecution of Trump would feed into the MAGA victim narrative and they would fixate on getting their vengeance. There are no other principles at play here. MAGA doesn't do "principles".
Because I have no idea what you're hoping to achieve. I'm just saying it should be done legitimately instead of all this banana republic shit.
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
How did those Dems respond? Did they believe that there would be consequences or "vengeance" as you put it?
Defeating political opponents at the polls instead of putting them in prison as fascists do is a pretty important principle. When Democrats see that what you tried to explain to them - that they could find themselves on the other end of that - perhaps they will be willing to negotiate seriously so that it doesn't happen again.
Hell no. They can't see past the end of their noses.
LOL - no. They'll wait til it's their turn and go on their own rampage (using EOs with little judicial resistance). Again. And again. The system is broken. There is no incentive to negotiate or build consensus. Just snatch a 50.001% majority and raise hell.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,872
- 39,269
- 2,180
Men over women rio
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Sorry, I'm not ready to give up on Democrats yet.
When my kids misbehaved, I gave them consequences. I didn't assume that they shouldn't have a consequence because they would simply misbehave again. If they did, I increased the consequences. Their behavior was never perfect, but far better than the horror stories I hear form other parents who throw up their hands and give up as you suggest.
Democrats are very spoiled by a media that never gives them consequences when they matter. Team Trump is giving Team Autopen and the Lawfare Squads some consequences now.
Maybe it will never help, and Democrats will never change. However, since no other suggestion is forthcoming, it should be tried and tried hard.
BTW, the Democrat lawfare continues if you have not noticed. We just went through almost six months of low-level federal judges attempting to play amateur president. The latest USSC ruling will stop some of that, but they will try in another direction.
So Trumpers/Republicans do not have the option of hoping the lawfare will die on the vine if they do nothing about it.
It doesn't matter. The system is broken.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Seems to be a pattern here.
We have talk that option for many decades. Nothing gets done. Rand Paul is a libertarian. That party has little power if any. Yet he can screw over the Republican Party as he stands on his principles. I fully expect follow on legislation to have more teeth than this one. Transitioning needs time. The voters though change up many times every two years and we get nothing done to do the work that needs to be done. We all know if Progs win the House in 2026 that there will be 'impeachapalooza" again. Hollywood will produce it. On TV day after day.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Media back at it, record high temps proof of "climate change," record lows are... not news..- Started by EMH
- Replies: 0
-
Elon Musk offers to pay TSA workers after Schumer tries to starve their families.- Started by Nostra
- Replies: 4
