The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.

[Seymour Flops]

In the vernacular of The Following enforcing the law against those who violate it at some point became "lawfare."

But in your vernacular, it will not be lawfare if the law is enforced against Hunter Biden, "Dr." Fauci, and the J6 Committee?

 

[berg80]

But in your vernacular, it will not be lawfare if they enforce the law against Hunter Biden, Fauci, and the J6 Committee?

Lawfare is a word commonly used by trump's cult members as a means to avoid dealing with the reality of his criminal acts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lawfare is a word commonly used by trump's cult members as a means to avoid dealing with the reality of his criminal acts.

So you will not try to avoid the reality of the criminal acts of the people I mentioned above?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.

Yes. The checks and balances are unreliable in a (simple) three-part separation of government.

The starting point for understanding the perpetually cycling problems of the three-branch governing system is that all of the executive power is in the executive branch, and the subsequent security departments lack an orderly organization of that power – just about every president reorganizes the branch to accommodate their agendas. The partisan problem is because the legislative assemblies are generally commissioned, publicly elected, and unsupervised. The judicial problem is because the administrative powers are distributed among the three branches, and the political contest in the legislatures stabilized into its erroneous duopoly; ultimately, disseminating partisanship into society, including the judicial servants.

The absolute truth is that a three-branch government only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. The inconvenient truth is that neither the separation nor the formulation of checks on power prevents corruption or controls the quality of the inevitable oligarchy formed by the principal officials in the government.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.​

No, the Founders didn't anticipate a party as CORRUPT as Democrats.

A Dem party so corrupt it would bastardize the law to NULLIFY a presidential election they lost. Hogtying the president by filing hundreds of bogus injunction lawsuits before SHILL Dem judges. Nullifying the will of WE THE PEOPLE. A direct attack on democracy and the Constitution.

A Dem party so corrupt that it would engineer the invasion of 10's of millions of criminal, raping, murdering, scamming illegals from other countries.

A Dem party so corrupt it would count those 10's of millions of illegals in the census to SCAM dozens more representatives in the House than they should get. Representatives that represent foreign criminal invaders. Representatives that nullify the votes of American representatives.

Yeah, I felt like destroying this dipshit OP.

 

[Independent thinker]

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

So, you are against us moving into the 21st century? would you prefer Trump wore one of those long wigs from the 18th century? Would that make you feel better?