Trump Demands Supreme Court Rein In Lawless Leftwing Tyrants in Judge's Robes

[Foxfyre]

The Courts don't have jurisdiction over what they haven't bothered to give themselves jurisdiction over.

Here's the deal, if POTUS says the Courts don't have jurisdiction -- Who decides that?

The Courts.

If the Courts want jurisdiction over something, they simply take it. That, my Dear Sir, is what's called a dictatorship.

If they want to avoid, defer, evade or otherwise re-make the law, they simply Rule that it is so.

If they want to Tell POTUS what to do, they just rule that they have the power to do just that.

If SCOTUS wants to tell POTUS what to do, they simply rule that they have the power to do so. If they want to block legislation, they simply rule they have the power to do so.

Am I painting a picture yet?

Politicians, Congresscritters, Presidents, Senators, Gubners, etc are all ELECTED to Office BY THE PEOPLE. And they can be removed by The People.

The Founding Fathers entrusted the Judicial Branch to do the right thing and gave them unprecendented protections to do so, believing that if they were given such protections, they wouldn't go political on us.

But they have. Badly. VERY badly. Really BADLY.

When you have a pipsqueak Judge in Bum **** Sang Frang usurp the powers of the Presidency, something has to be done.

If SCOTUS is too gutless to rein-in their activist Judges, then we have a problem. Well, not 'we' so much as the Judiciary.

It was debated in this Country that we might be better off without a Judiciary. It can be debated again.

I'm not sure I would like it without a Judiciary but it would be better than our current highly politicized Judiciary.

Our apolitical 'Judiciary' has issued more TRO's (temporaryrestrainingorders) on OMB in his first 40 days than they did on Sponge Brains Shits Pants in hiss first 3 years.

Something stinks here and it ain't in Denmark

Exactly. SCOTUS cannot act until somebody with standing argues the issue before the high court. But the only way to remedy the corrupt way the Democrat Party is using the courts is for SCOTUS to hear the case and make a ruling that puts the lower courts back into their place. That can't happen any too soon. Both Congress and the Executive Branch know they do not have to obey unconstitutional orders from the lower courts but the media and the Democrats are using it for political advantage and that too should be stopped.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s batshit crazy.

It’s a RULING

Not an “advisory”

Please read your Constitution and tell me where it says in any place that the courts can direct the President or Congress to do anything regardless of what they call it. The Constitution creates three co-equal branches of government, each independent of the others, with each having its own designated responsibilities.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Link????

No link is required.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We can have bad presidents and bad congresses

Why not bad judges?

We are talking about bad presidents here.

Congress has not yet acted badly.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Please read your Constitution and tell me where it says in any place that the courts can direct the President or Congress to do anything regardless of what they call it. The Constitution creates three co-equal branches of government, each independent of the others, with each having its own designated responsibilities.

Judicial review.

Look it up, read, and tell us what you think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Judicial review.

Look it up, read, and tell us what you think.

Why don't you just quote it. I have quoted and provided links to all pertinent arguments I have made. I won't be addressing those who cannot or will not do that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why don't you just quote it. I have quoted and provided links to all pertinent arguments I have made. I won't be addressing those who cannot or will not do that.

You don't adjudicate the law.

SCOTUS does, and it does not agree with you, as well you know.

Trump can appeal is what Trump is supposed to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't adjudicate the law.

SCOTUS does, and it does not agree with you, as well you know.

Trump can appeal is what Trump is supposed to do.

Give me the constitutional basis. I have done that with the links I have provided in this thread. Give me the specific constitutional basis to justify your argument.

 

[Mac-7]

Sad to say we have bad people who think Money and Power are more important that a government
THAT works for ALL its people. Not just ANY ONE dam political party.

We are a two party system whether fence jockeys like it or not

The problem is liberal poisoning of our education system going back 50 years ago

 

[Mac-7]

We are talking about bad presidents here.

Congress has not yet acted badly.

I’m talking about bad judges who are political hacks for a defeated political party - the democrats

 

[Mac1958]

Go after the press, go after the courts, go after law enforcement agencies, go after the primary institutions. Intimidate them, punish them, reduce them, get them under control.

Textbook stuff.

The world has seen it all before. I wonder if the people cared back then, or if they just weren't paying attention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The world has seen it all before. I wonder if the people cared back then, or if they just weren't paying attention.

^^
Mindless nonsense.

 

[Edgetho]

Please read your Constitution and tell me where it says in any place that the courts can direct the President or Congress to do anything regardless of what they call it. The Constitution creates three co-equal branches of government, each independent of the others, with each having its own designated responsibilities.

Excuse me, but where in The Constitution does it say that the Judiciary is a 'co-equal' branch of government?

You know who says the Judiciary is 'Co-Equal'? The Judiciary. That's it. The Constitution does NOT say it.

See where I'm going with this??

There was BIG TIME debate about the role of the judiciary during our Nation's founding. Yes, the founders debated whether or the Judiciary was co-equal but I don't see it layed-out in the Constitution. What frightened many of the anti-federalists back then is exactly what's going on today -- an out of control judiciary.

And more importantly, a SCOTUS too timid to do anything about it.

Constitutional Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Talking Points | Federal Judicial Center

Biographies of judges include birth/death, Article III judicial service, other federal judicial service, education, professional career, research resources, and other information…

www.fjc.gov

It may be time we re-visited the role of the judiciary in this country

 

[Delldude]

View attachment 1091211

Make you all warm fuzzy?

 

[Crepitus]

Make you all warm fuzzy?

Telling the truth is a good thing at all time, warm and fuzzy or not.

You should try it once or twice for a change.

 

[Foxfyre]

Excuse me, but where in The Constitution does it say that the Judiciary is a 'co-equal' branch of government?

You know who says the Judiciary is 'Co-Equal'? The Judiciary. That's it. The Constitution does NOT say it.

See where I'm going with this??

There was BIG TIME debate about the role of the judiciary during our Nation's founding. Yes, the founders debated whether or the Judiciary was co-equal but I don't see it layed-out in the Constitution. What frightened many of the anti-federalists back then is exactly what's going on today -- an out of control judiciary.

And more importantly, a SCOTUS too timid to do anything about it.

Constitutional Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Talking Points | Federal Judicial Center

Biographies of judges include birth/death, Article III judicial service, other federal judicial service, education, professional career, research resources, and other information…

www.fjc.gov

It may be time we re-visited the role of the judiciary in this country

The three branches of the federal government are co-equal in the sense that they are independent of one another even though various function or personnel of one may be dependent on the actions of another.

Do We Have Three Co-Equal Branches of Government?

I hear it all the time, usually when someone is talking about separation of powers in the federal government: They say we have “three co-equal branches of government”. It’s heard …

constitutionstudy.com

 

[Edgetho]

Do We Have Three Co-Equal Branches of Government?

I hear it all the time, usually when someone is talking about separation of powers in the federal government: They say we have “three co-equal branches of government”. It’s heard …

constitutionstudy.com

People could learn a lot by reading the above

 

[Foxfyre]

People could learn a lot by reading the above

Yes. The nuances, letter and intent of the Constitution is so poorly understand by most Americans anymore it is pretty scary. I taught Constitution for years but only in its most basic sense with some nuance provided by other founding documents. I am pretty sure I know the Constitution better than some, but I do not consider myself an expert or constitutional scholar.

 

[Edgetho]

Yes. The nuances, letter and intent of the Constitution is so poorly understand by most Americans anymore it is pretty scary. I taught Constitution for years but only in its most basic sense with some nuance provided by other founding documents. I am pretty sure I know the Constitution better than some, but I do not consider myself an expert or constitutional scholar.

This is one of the more salient points made in your provided document.

By not checking the facts, we’ve forgotten what our rights are and the fact that government is there to protect our rights, not determine them. By expecting the federal government to check itself, we have let loose a monster while tying our hands behind our back so we cannot defend ourselves. This is why knowing the truth is so important. It is also why it is so important that we read and understand the Constitution for ourselves. Only then will we recognize when such errors are brought forward, and only then can we truly live free.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Excuse me, but where in The Constitution does it say that the Judiciary is a 'co-equal' branch of government?

You know who says the Judiciary is 'Co-Equal'? The Judiciary. That's it. The Constitution does NOT say it.

See where I'm going with this??

There was BIG TIME debate about the role of the judiciary during our Nation's founding. Yes, the founders debated whether or the Judiciary was co-equal but I don't see it layed-out in the Constitution. What frightened many of the anti-federalists back then is exactly what's going on today -- an out of control judiciary.

And more importantly, a SCOTUS too timid to do anything about it.

Constitutional Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Talking Points | Federal Judicial Center

Biographies of judges include birth/death, Article III judicial service, other federal judicial service, education, professional career, research resources, and other information…

www.fjc.gov

It may be time we re-visited the role of the judiciary in this country

Not going to do easy lifting for you. Go read you The Federalist. Shame on you!