Trump is finally saying “No”. Outstanding.

[Frankeneinstein]

Court had the ability to make this ruling.

...btw, that was covered in post 36

 

[pknopp]

yeah no matter the circumstance, they had every right, in fact they had a right to rule against him with a rubber stamp without even hearing the case and just mailed the verdict to a higher court.

They heard the case. The ruling had actually been made long ago. This court simply enforced it like the Supreme Court did previously.

Meaning that he followed/agreed with our advice no matter the legality of the circumstance(s)

Your advice?

 

[pknopp]

...btw, that was covered in post 36

No it wasn't.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

They heard the case. The ruling had actually been made long ago. This court simply enforced it like the Supreme Court did previously.

yeah, and post 36 explains why it should be followed

Your advice?

it was in complete agreement with you

 

[Frankeneinstein]

No it wasn't.

lol

 

[San Souci]

If Trump can ignore the courts and laws, everyone can.

If the So Called Courts keep interfering ,THEY will destroy the Country

 

[JGalt]

About time.

District Court judges do not run the Executive Branch. Heck, they aren't even in the Constitution and are mere creations of Congress.

Outstanding, Mr. Trump!

Now say "Hell no!"

 

[JGalt]

If Trump can ignore the courts and laws, everyone can.

Obama set the precedence for that, so suckit.

 

[pknopp]

If the So Called Courts keep interfering ,THEY will destroy the Country

What exactly do you think courts do? LOL

 

[pknopp]

Obama set the precedence for that, so suckit.

Even if true, all you are arguing is my argument. Both parties are destroying the country.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So you think any court in the country can over rule the president? I just want to know so we have this information the next time a democrat has the White House.

Please do.

I think you misread my post, sir or ma'am.

Is the Executive not co-equal with the judiciary?

Is rhetorical. Since the executive is co-equal to the judiciary, then the judiciary cannot over rule the president.

No more than the president can tell the juciary how to rule.

Right now Democrats and of course "not Democrats" want to see the courts over-rule Trump at every turn. Nothing in the Constitution gives them power over executive decisions. Article II is quite clear as to who the executive power is vested in.

 

[Muhammed]

In all fairness, I ignore laws too.

But it has nothing to do with me liking them or not.

I compare and contrast laws with higher laws, like the Constitution.

If the Constitution says I can bear arms but the local law says I can't, then I tend to ignore the local law.

But I'm very careful about it! lol

I was smoking weed long before it was legal, I was careful about that too. I musta copped my first lid at age... I dunno... 10? We were in Haight Ashbury in the 60's, the feds were all over the place, the FBI was tapping phones... anyway, I digress. The point being, when I'm ignoring laws I fly under the radar screen. I don't go waving my gun around in public, and I don't smoke a joint under a cop's nose.

The "f*ck you" thing accompanying deliberate violations of the law, though, is a whole different animal. That's anarchy and sedition all wrapped into one. Not to mention the multiple awards, you know... Darwin award, Bonehead of the Year, that kinda thing ...

When I was a teenager I amassed this huge album collection. And 90%+ were stolen from Woolworth's and K-Mart.

Including this one...



Maybe if Woolworth's and K-Mart had better security, they wouldn't have gone out of business.

 

[OKTexas]

At best, a District Court might claim to be a co-equal branch. But only the one Supreme Court is in Article III.

You might want to read Article 3, Section 1 again. It gives congress the power to establish inferior courts to the Supreme Court. They are as much Article 3 courts as SCOTUS.
.

 

[toobfreak]

You might want to read Article 3, Section 1 again. It gives congress the power to establish inferior courts to the Supreme Court. They are as much Article 3 courts as SCOTUS.

I don't think so. They are inferior transient district courts intended to take some of the lesser matters away from SCOTUS dealing with them directly, so how could they have co-equal powers to the Judiciary established in the Constitution as a co-equal branch. Not only would this give Congress more than co-equal power to the other two branches, but with power to indefinitely grow that judicial power until it utterly swamps out Executive power!

Worse, these are not even elected offices accountable to the people. It would give these unelected district courts essentially unlimited power over any president rendering all presidential manatees moot. Why the hell should I even bother to get up to vote when all of the real power is forever fixed within an appointed district judge?

 

[BackAgain]

I'm perfectly fine with my vote. Quit trying to blame others for your vote.

You’re silly. We are thrilled with our vote.

Our President is doing a terrific job.

 

[BackAgain]

Projection

Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his...

www.psychologytoday.com

Good. Now stop projecting.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump is finally saying “No”.​

About time.

Meantime, he ought to be telling these people: "Hell no. Over my f-cking dead body...."

I heard an expert state earlier that the DOJ is unaccustomed to dealing with insurrection from within government bodies like governors, mayors, police captains, etc.

I suggest the DOJ start getting really jiggy with the idea that democrats in elected positions as public officials working with enemies to the USA are now staging an attempted coup to overthrow and break away from the United States and get ready to drop an awfully big hammer on all of them before this sedition is allowed to erupt farther.

Only an abysmal fool still believes that democrats can be reasoned with. Stealing an election failed, weaponizing the law failed them, and attempts on a president's life just didn't quite work out neither, so all that leaves them it to unilaterally refuse to recognize the elected leader of the country who won the popular vote and plurality of voters with a clear mandate.

It is all they got left since left to Trump's designs of absolutely using the law to its fullest extent in actually enforcing our borders spells DOOM for the democrat party.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't think so. They are inferior transient district courts intended to take some of the lesser matters away from SCOTUS dealing with them directly, so how could they have co-equal powers to the Judiciary established in the Constitution as a co-equal branch. Not only would this give Congress more than co-equal power to the other two branches, but with power to indefinitely grow that judicial power until it utterly swamps out Executive power!

Worse, these are not even elected offices accountable to the people. It would give these unelected district courts essentially unlimited power over any president rendering all presidential manatees moot. Why the hell should I even bother to get up to vote when all of the real power is forever fixed within an appointed district judge?

Only judges that require Senate approval are considered Article 3 courts and the judges have a lifetime appointment. Magistrates and Immigration Judges are not Article 3 courts.

.

 

[toobfreak]

Only judges that require Senate approval are considered Article 3 courts and the judges have a lifetime appointment. Magistrates and Immigration Judges are not Article 3 courts.

Still:

A). I disagree with the lifetime appointment jazz. Too much absolute unchecked power is being placed into too many judges, many with twisted political agendas. Hell, the POTUS has less unchecked authority then they do! What they say goes, right?! How many times can Trump claim that?

B). These appointed district judges do not have more power than the Supreme Court. And they will have under the rules you set forth, making our elections meaningless. Even the SCOTUS takes a consensus of nine justices not just one lone judge. Vote for whoever you want but you are still getting what these judges want--- NOT what the Constitution promises; it says WE THE PEOPLE, not, WE A HANDFUL OF APPOINTED JUDGES!

C). These judges only have say in matters before their courts affecting their lone district, not the nation; national matters are the concern of the SCOTUS.

 

[OKTexas]

Still:

A). I disagree with the lifetime appointment jazz. Too much absolute unchecked power is being placed into too many judges, many with twisted political agendas. Hell, the POTUS has less unchecked authority then they do! What they say goes, right?! How many times can Trump claim that?

B). These appointed district judges do not have more power than the Supreme Court. And they will have under the rules you set forth, making our elections meaningless. Even the SCOTUS takes a consensus of nine justices not just one lone judge. Vote for whoever you want but you are still getting what these judges want--- NOT what the Constitution promises; it says WE THE PEOPLE, not, WE A HANDFUL OF APPOINTED JUDGES!

C). These judges only have say in matters before their courts affecting their lone district, not the nation; national matters are the concern of the SCOTUS.

Well, that's the system we have, but remember, there are appeals. Usually a three judge panel and it could wind up be 7 in an en banc review.

.