White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[whutTHEYsay]

ence said that somebody can go to a judge and the judge can respond to that petitioner. Pence reiterated that the president, and the president alone, has the authority to act on that issue.

You are incredibly stupid if that is all you heard.

I hope Anericans like you are a very slim majority.

You are dangerous to the well being of freedom and democracy or you are like eleven years old or something.

 

[Athanasius68]

The president has the authority, and the knowledge, to make that determination.

But Federal judges have the last word on whether it is constitutional or not. Or if it causes undo harm to American citizens.

Trump lost in court twice now. Quit believing false things. It's dangerous.

Well no, not entirely. There can be a constitutional amendment. Or Congress could strip the courts authority to rule on certain subjects.
The problem with the ruling is that the judge was ruling as a legislator, or as a guy writing on a message board.

 

[Athanasius68]

ence said that somebody can go to a judge and the judge can respond to that petitioner. Pence reiterated that the president, and the president alone, has the authority to act on that issue.

You are incredibly stupid if that is all you heard.

I hope Anericans like you are a very slim majority.

You are dangerous to the well being of freedom and democracy or you are like eleven years old or something.

How is a judge NOT a threat to democracy and freedom when he issues rulings based upon HIS opinion of a policy of a president? How is somebody who thinks a judge has that authority NOT a threat to democracy and freedom?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

How is a judge NOT a threat to democracy and freedom when he issues rulings based upon HIS opinion of a policy of a president? How is somebody who thinks a judge has that authority NOT a threat to democracy and freedom?

We do not live in a dictatorship where the President is above the law.

You are stupid and not listening.

That is what Federal judges are sworn to do.

You are saying that no Federal judge can rule on any matter regarding national security. That is absurd. That is ignorant. That is dangerous.

As presidente, Trump could write an executive order for Federal Marshals, to sieze a bank supposedly involved in funding terrorists merely because Trump's kleptocrat buddies here and abroad could not get a cheap loan or they wouldn't launder money.

So in your dream dictatorship no judge could restrain that order and havoc because it was made on the grounds of a threat to national security.

The bank would have no means to defend themselves from your dictator.

You are dangerous to liberty, capitalism and the American way.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16503903.

Or Congress could strip the courts authority to rule on certain subjects.

NFW! You are going insane over this. Congress can't rewrite the Constitution. The Federal Courts would destroy that if it were mentioned as a thought.

I could fight that in court and win simply as a citizen. No need for a lawyer.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16503903

There can be a constitutional amendment.

The reddest of red red states and bluest of blue states would never even consider voting in favor of that.

States rights are etched in gold in the Constitution. You Trumpees can not ever destroy them.

 

[Athanasius68]

How is a judge NOT a threat to democracy and freedom when he issues rulings based upon HIS opinion of a policy of a president? How is somebody who thinks a judge has that authority NOT a threat to democracy and freedom?

We do not live in a dictatorship where the President is above the law.

You are stupid and not listening.

That is what Federal judges are sworn to do.

You are saying that no Federal judge can rule on any matter regarding national security. That is absurd. That is ignorant. That is dangerous.

As presidente, Trump could write an executive order for Federal Marshals, to sieze a bank supposedly involved in funding terrorists merely because Trump's kleptocrat buddies here and abroad could not get a cheap loan or they wouldn't launder money.

So in your dream dictatorship no judge could restrain that order and havoc because it was made on the grounds of a threat to national security.

The bank would have no means to defend themselves from your dictator.

You are dangerous to liberty, capitalism and the American way.

There seems to be no worry here about a judge being above the law. It seems a bit of a conflict of interest for a judge to be the final arbiter of his or her authority, and that that somehow preserves democracy and freedom.
As far as el presidente Trump issuing an executive order to loot a bank via illicit means, that would probably be unconstitutional. It would also be unnecessary. As the chief law enforcement officer of the USA, he could direct the Justice Department to open an investigation. The career lawyers would thus need to obey and follow whatever evidence exists pointing to whatever crime alleged.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Horseshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the American taxpayer had to give every single illegal alien an education. And, medical care. So do not give us that horse shit that only congress passes laws on spending! The American taxpayer is fucked!

Who said we didn't have to give medical care to illegal aliens.

Doctors take an oath. Doesn't seem to be a Supreme Cout issue.

And if illegal aliens are putting their kids in schools - a reqirement if they live in a school district - then they pay property taxes through home ownership or rental.

So the Anerican taxpayer is not fucked as you wish to believe.
?
So what SCOTUS case are you referring to involving Federal dollars

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 16503903.

Or Congress could strip the courts authority to rule on certain subjects.

NFW! You are going insane over this. Congress can't rewrite the Constitution. The Federal Courts would destroy that if it were mentioned as a thought.

I could fight that in court and win simply as a citizen. No need for a lawyer.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction of the courts. No need to believe me. Go read the article pertaining to the Judiciary.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16504254

There seems to be no worry here about a judge being above the law

No judge is above the law - they cannot break the law. Doing the job of upholding and protecting the Constitution is the mainstay of our Republic.

This judge and his decision should be highly respected.

We can't expect Trumpees to have that much courage and character. They want a dictator. They are steeped in fear and no longer love freedom.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16504280

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction of the courts.

Explain to me what you think determining jurisdiction means.

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 16504254

There seems to be no worry here about a judge being above the law

No judge is above the law - they cannot break the law. Doing the job of upholding and protecting the Constitution is the mainstay of our Republic.

This judge and his decision should be highly respected.

We can't expect Trumpees to have that much courage and character. They want a dictator. They are steeped in fear and no longer love freedom.

Well, no the judges can't break the law. But that is rather easy to achieve when people argue the judge is the final arbiter as to what the law is.
A judge should not putting his personal views into a decision. As you pointed out many posts ago, the Washington judge did exactly that.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

WillowTree, post: 16499113

Because you fail to take into account that Islam is more than just a religion, it is law and ideology! They are abusive to women, children, infidels and Christians and gays. and I do not understand why you support that ideology! Can you explain that?

I do not support that ideology. I already told you that. Are you stupid or something.

I lived in Dearborn for a few years. I was a roomate with a young Muslim medical student from Egypt. He was very kind respectful and dedicated to becoming a surgeon.

That was a long time ago, but my townhouse subdivision near DC is very diverse. My Pakistani neighbor just moved out and I will greatly them and their two teenaged sons.

I have watched them grow up into two of the most respectful male teens I have ever met.

Stop lying about what I support.

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 16504280

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction of the courts.

Explain to me what you think determining jurisdiction means.

That a law can be passed delineating what the judges cannot rule upon. A number of years ago there was some thought amongst pro-life types that this could solve the abortion issue- simply forbid the courts from ruling on the issue. Politically, it was a non starter.

 

[WillowTree]

WillowTree, post: 16499113

Because you fail to take into account that Islam is more than just a religion, it is law and ideology! They are abusive to women, children, infidels and Christians and gays. and I do not understand why you support that ideology! Can you explain that?

I do not support that ideology. I already told you that. Are you stupid or something.

I lived in Dearborn for a few years. I was a roomate with a young Muslim medical student from Egypt. He was very kind respectful and dedicated to becoming a surgeon.

That was a long time ago, but my townhouse subdivision near DC is very diverse. My Pakistani neighbor just moved out and I will greatly them and their two teenaged sons.

I have watched them grow up into two of the most respectful male teens I have ever met.

Stop lying about what I support.

Idiot!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16504409

Well, no the judges can't break the law. But that is rather easy to achieve when people argue the judge is the final arbiter as to what the law is.

No single judge is the arbitor of what the law is. Now you are fabricating arguments that don't exist.

The President is the only branch that has unitary power.

 

[WillowTree]

What the idiot fails to understand is that the religion is inseparable from the ideology and the sharia. That's just how ******* dumb he is!

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 16504409

Well, no the judges can't break the law. But that is rather easy to achieve when people argue the judge is the final arbiter as to what the law is.

No single judge is the arbitor of what the law is. Now you are fabricating arguments that don't exist.

The President is the only branch that has unitary power.

The judge in Washington just arbitrated thus.
And yes, the president has unitary power in the executive branch. Which he exercised with his EO.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

Wrong. It's a ban of ALL citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Athanasius68, post: 16504579

The judge in Washington just arbitrated thus.

No he didn't idiot. Robarts did not settle the dispute. He is not the final arbitor. Not even close.

This one will go to a majority decision at SCOTUS unless the government does not appeal.