Trump's second term is being nullified by rinky dink regional federal judges, so he deserves a do over, i.e. to have another second term.

[forkup]

District courts do NOT have Constitutional authority.

My argument isn't that the district courts can't rule on constitutionality

Your argument is so incoherent that you can't even keep it straight yourself in a single couple of paragraphs post.

They are NOT created as "co-equal" by the Constitution, they were created by congress

They are confirmed by the Senate, just like any other federal judge. And it is the judicial Branch not SCOTUS that is co-equal. A branch they belong to. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of how separation of powers work, or a willingness to simply lie about it.

but that a single district can make a "nationwide injunction" that limits a president's Article 2 authority.

Nationwide injunctions have been around since 1963. Not a single time has any Supreme Court decided that doing so was unconstitutional.

What we have is your opinion. An opinion flying in the face of facts, history, and dare I say, me believing that you are being honest.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

kyzr, stop embarrassing yourself.

Go read up about our judiciary system and how it works, please.

 

[kyzr]

Your argument is so incoherent that you can't even keep it straight yourself in a single couple of paragraphs post.
They are confirmed by the Senate, just like any other federal judge. And it is the judicial Branch not SCOTUS that is co-equal. A branch they belong to. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of how separation of powers work, or a willingness to simply lie about it.
Nationwide injunctions have been around since 1963. Not a single time has any Supreme Court decided that doing so was unconstitutional.
What we have is your opinion. An opinion flying in the face of facts, history, and dare I say, me believing that you are being honest.

You are correct that my posts are just my "opinions".

More succinctly put, "if they came in illegally, they can go out illegally". In spite of district judges ruling on the AEA.

Maybe Trump would have more luck deporting illegals using Clinton's Law?

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Former United States President Bill Clinton asserted that the legislation strengthened "the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally".<a href="Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a> However, IIRAIRA has been criticized as overly punitive "by eliminating due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases and curtailing equitable relief from removal"

 

[Slyhunter]

I see. Just a question. Who decides what's within the "executive powers?"

What you seem to say is that it's the executive branch that has the right to decide what executive powers are. Something I'm pretty sure doesn't really mesh with the concept of 3 co-equal branches of government.

So I'll help. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing them. And the judicial branch is tasked with solving any disputes over those laws that might arise.

If you have a problem with the concept,
there are plenty of countries that think the executive branch deciding everything is all fine and dandy and I suggest you move. I've heard N-Korea is lovely this time of year.

The Suprem3e Court, Not 750 different Regional individual rinky dink Judges.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, the SCOTUS is the decider.

But the judiciary maintains the guard rails of the law, and the executive cannot interfere.

Congress could readjust those guard rails.

 

[forkup]

The Suprem3e Court, Not 750 different Regional individual rinky dink Judges.

Sure 750 different regional individual rinky dink judges. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the court of appeals. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the Supreme Court. What you can't do is say that the decision of a judge that was put forward by a president and confirmed by the Senate (which all these "rinky dink" judges are) are invalid because you don't like their decision.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The judges are the guard rails to the supreme court.

It's how it is done, fork up. Tough to be you.

 

[kyzr]

Sure 750 different regional individual rinky dink judges. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the court of appeals. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the Supreme Court. What you can't do is say that the decision of a judge that was put forward by a president and confirmed by the Senate (which all these "rinky dink" judges are) are invalid because you don't like their decision.

Only the USSC is co-equal to the president's Article-2 Powers, not the district judges.
District judges only have legal authority in their districts.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Only the USSC is co-equal to the president's Article-2 Powers, not the district judges.
District judges only have legal authority in their districts.

You are wrong. They are the guard rails, funneling interpretations to scotus. The executive will follow that.

 

[Slyhunter]

Sure 750 different regional individual rinky dink judges. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the court of appeals. If you don't like their decision you can appeal to the Supreme Court. What you can't do is say that the decision of a judge that was put forward by a president and confirmed by the Senate (which all these "rinky dink" judges are) are invalid because you don't like their decision.

Then what is the point of having a President?

 

[Moonglow]

Since they are usurping his Executive Powers so that there are only 2 of 3 branches effectively with authority currently, soon as the SCOTUS fixes things, then his second term should officially start.

Only if he gets buttfucked by a rhino.

 

[Moonglow]

Then what is the point of having a President?

Supreme Commander of the armed forces..

 

[forkup]

Then what is the point of having a President?

The point is that he can choose who he nominates as a judge. The Senate can choose to confirm or not confirm that nominee. After that there is no provision in the constitution or the law that says that a president can choose to ignore the rulings of that judge because he disagrees.

I'll flip the question. What's the point of having judges when in your model it's ultimately the president who decides what the law is?

Again there are systems like that. They're called autocracies.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Then what is the point of having a President?

To execute the laws, not decide which one he likes and which one he does not.

 

[22lcidw]

The point is that he can choose who he nominates as a judge. The Senate can choose to confirm or not confirm that nominee. After that there is no provision in the constitution or the law that says that a president can choose to ignore the rulings of that judge because he disagrees.

I'll flip the question. What's the point of having judges when in your model it's ultimately the president who decides what the law is?

Again there are systems like that. They're called autocracies.

For some reason Republicans do not nominate people like the Progs do. So pure conservative judges are not sworn in.

 

[Slyhunter]

The point is that he can choose who he nominates as a judge. The Senate can choose to confirm or not confirm that nominee. After that there is no provision in the constitution or the law that says that a president can choose to ignore the rulings of that judge because he disagrees.

I'll flip the question. What's the point of having judges when in your model it's ultimately the president who decides what the law is?

Again there are systems like that. They're called autocracies.

Regional Judges rule on Regional stuff. Like that other guy said only the USSC can counter a President s only they are co-equal.

 

[Slyhunter]

For some reason Republicans do not nominate people like the Progs do. So pure conservative judges are not sworn in.

We believe in the best person for the judge. We don't use criteria other than ability and merit.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, this is the very first presidency that has had to live with a balance of powers.

 

[SweetSue92]

To execute the laws, not decide which one he likes and which one he does not.

Well goody then. He can treat the rioters in LA just exactly like you treated the J6 folks. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW right?

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, this is the very first presidency that has had to live with a balance of powers.

A rinky dink judge telling the president what he can and cannot do--often being wholly wrong in that order--is not a "balance of power".

Or if you just love that idea, meet our rinky dink judges when the next Democrat gets elected.

Mac, your TDS is making you dumber and dumber.