Now MTG is more of a worry to me, ha, ha. She's amping up for a run in 2028? Yeah right.
The next 100 days
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
Dem Al Green just filed letters of impeachment due to Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Before anyone asks….yes, Rep Green was in Congress when Obama bombed Libya along with several other countries without Congressional approval and to the best of my knowledge he did not attempt to impeach Obama .
Funny how they backed off declaring the AUMF expired due to passage of time when they realized that meant releasing men from Gitmo even Biden thought were too dangerous and bringing home all the troops Truman sent to Korea.
Oh my god, the one decent call Trump has made while in office and he's calling for impeachment. No President has asked for congressional approval since WWII, and democrats have put us in conflicts as well as Republicans. That's a decision by Green that's as dumb as most of Trumps decisions.
….and 79 Dems voted for the resolution. Both parties suck if we’re being honest. The Dems just win the suckage prize today
Oddly the two Presidents most associated with military adventurism, both Bushes, are the only two who sought Congressional approval of their proposed actions.
I know W sought it for 9/11, did HW seek it for the Gulf War? I don't remember that very well.
Yeah. You guys elected a convicted felon to office who led an insurrection against the US Congress…. You win the suckage prize everyday for the next 4+ years.
And to think I blamed the Dems for nominating a vegetable which they hid from the American public then once that fraud was exposed a couple of Dem elitist threw someone who hadn’t received a single primary vote and who was unelectable 4 years earlier into the race.
convicted felon? even Judge Judy would not have tolerated the democrats nonsense.
Last edited:
Supreme court just took steps to dismantle a large portion of their check on the president. They were their own self destruct mode. Now it will be too late when many cases ever get to them. Their decision was unconstitutional. This decision will be to the detriment of the Republican party when they are not in office.
Mixed emotions on this one. I like the immediate check on presidential power. However, the idea of a hand selected lower court judge being able to grant a national injunction against the executive branch is ripe for abuse. Not sure what the answer is here
It has to go up the ladder though. You appeal and it goes up the ladder. It's slow but effective. But there isn't anything to stop it immediately now. That is a problem.
If the ruling goes the other way the injunction issued by a lower court judge would have been viewed as effectively superseding the decision of the Executive Branch across the entire country until such time as the judge’s decision is appealed and the appeal is successful .
Last edited:
Yes, that's what makes it slow. But if it goes all the way to the way to the supreme court and they rule that it constitutionally was the right of the President to make that decision then it is put back into effect.
This way, if it was not the right of the President then he has the long road of it getting to the Supreme Court in which actions that are denying citizens of their constitutional rights are allowed. Many times that long road is long enough that it doesn't matter to those people that were initially denied that right when it is eventually reinstated. Many rights are time sensitive. Them being denied that right isn't fixed when that right is allowed months or years later. During that long road there is often suffering involved. That suffering will never leave them. Whether that suffering is where they have to live, or of a financial nature, or something else they have to endure, it isn't always fixed by reinstating their rights.
The damage done to the US by having to wait out the SC is not usually as devastating to the US so much as it is to individuals whose rights were taken away. And the President has much greater power to speed up that process if he deems it necessary than those individuals whose rights may have been taken away.
Keep licking that fascist boot.
Wouldn't it have been nice for a common lower court judge to have stopped the spiral of many of the world's governments to the authority of dictatorial regimes? I'll give you an example that you should empathize with.... like if a judge was able to stop the Ayatollah from overthrowing freedoms for women?
(even if you think our current regime is not that bad)
Last edited:
Since the court system doesn’t operate like that in your beloved civil liberties woman rights abusing Iran. I’m not following your example.
Maybe when Lincoln freed the slaves and a Democratic Judge who was handpicked cancels the Lincoln’s action.
edited & cont....
I don't quite understand why you are torn on this. This is a building block upon which the SC was founded. This is taking away one of the courts abilities to protect individual's rights from a President who would be King. If a lower court's ruling goes against the president, and he loses the appeal then it goes up the ladder one more step.
It is not one lower court judge superseding the Executive Branch it is the entire Judicial Branch that supersedes the Executive Branch. If the president doesn't appeal then that is either his fault, or he is admitting he is wrong and that he will lose the appeal somewhere between here and the supreme court. If it is a supersedence then it is only a temporary supersedence that will be corrected later by the judicial branch. Usually the law or policy that he is changing has been in place for quite some time. It doesn't hurt that it stays in place a little longer.
Let’s try this….an unelected lower court judge in say Maryland may have the authority the grant relief to the petitioner in his jurisdiction. However, he lacks the constitutional authority to cancel an Order of the Executive Branch across the country. I view these cases as individuals asking for an Injunction but instead of granted the injunction to the petitioner these selected judges are granted class action injunctions and applying the same across the country. They lack the constitutional authority to grant a national injunction based on the specific claim of the local petitioner imo
I do see the danger btw. An Executive violating the civil rights of its citizens. I’m not comfortably with having to wait for the issue to get to the Supremes for what could be needed immediate protection. The unconstitutional Covid vaccine mandate comes to mind. There could be much more serious situations. I’m sure what the answer is here. I am sure that a person shouldn’t be able to hand pick an unelected judge an nullify an action of an elected president on a national basis. This also poses risks. What if said action is vital for our national security or health. If we have an effective vaccine for the next pandemic and said vaccine is the only solution to avoid 200M deaths in this county do we want some redneck judge from Alabama to have the authority to grant a nationwide injunction on the vaccine?
Like I said….I don’t know the answer. I do believe from a legal perspective the ruling was correct
Last edited:
Edited,
First of all you know that Trump tries to extend his powers way beyond what should be his reach. So more lower court judges putting injunctions on an action is not unusual in his administration. No president Republican or Democrat has tried to exceed his powers more than Trump. He has tried to throw out many laws and policies that have been on the books for decades.
Irregardless, there is a judicial branch there to stop liberal and/or conservative judges from being able to supersede good actions permanently. I'd rather give the policy that has been in place for decades the benefit of the doubt for temporary supercedence rather than allow someone's rights to be trampled on.
The US can wait on the Judicial Branch to correct itself or say it is not within the presidents powers. And no the judicial branch which is part of the lower courts does not lack that authority. Lower courts just lack the authority to do so permanently. You have to recognize the lower courts all the way up to the SC as being part of the Judicial Branch, because they are.
I also am damn sure that if some RFK Jr loving judge puts an injunction out, that would get to the Supreme Court very very quickly. And no one would fault the President for putting something like that(vaccine policy) through temporarily, under martial law, until it reached the SC.
The kind of stuff that is not right to wait on the SC for an injunction is what we are talking about. You are always on the precedent issue, well this definitely doesn't follow precedence. Considering that the president can take action on something that has been on the books for decades before, and this does not let precedence allow it to go to the SC, without changing people's rights.
This is allowing the President to get around Congress until it gets to the SC. So you are actually circumventing Congress & the Judicial Branch. Things that allow the President to change things very quickly without any extended analytical thought, are the very reasons that I hate Progressive Democrats, who want to make changes quickly and would like for us to rewrite the constitution with multiple amendments. This is the very thing that puts the brakes on Presidents doing anything they want with Executive Orders.
And those lower court judges that you point out weren't elected.... They were appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. So you are circumventing past presidents and congresses.(They were definitely elected.) You can't just throw out past presidential and congressionally appointed judges. Throwing out the powers of those appointments and saying they can't put out an injunction is a Third World move that puts us on a level not much above juntas. That is going against the idea of a represemtative government. We are not a direct Democracy, and for good reason. Progressive Democrats want us to be a direct democracy though.
Appointments to our Homeland Advisory Security Council: President of Bikers for Trump, retired president of super 8 motels, Arizona Sherriff & several others without any expertise to add to this council. What a joke of his cabinet of advisors that are around him.
This limited injunction is just going to give rise to more class action lawsuits and multiple filings of injunctions by separate parties cluttering up the courts. You know that will happen. It won't cover all parties affected, but they will find ways to cover more of the parties affected than by a single filing by an individual party. It will still make it more difficult on parties filing.
Congress and the Judicial Branch are just giving their powers away. Trump isn't even having to work for it anymore in his second term. King for 4 years. And judges don't even have to worry about the maga contingent but are still giving it away. This is a much greater worry than liberal use of Executive Orders. Quoting British law as justification is making the writers of the Constitution turn over in their graves.
Last edited:
I don’t view this issue as Trump specific. It’s a constitutional question for me. My view is in line with Justice Kagan’s 2022 analysis.
- Justice Kagan stated, “It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
- She argued that these broad injunctions contribute to "forum shopping," where lawsuits are filed in jurisdictions known to be sympathetic to the challengers' cause.
I was only referring to Trump in reference to what you stated in one of your above posts that I can't seem to find now, maybe because you edited it? It might have been in two separate posts. One in which you mention a vague reference to the number of injunctions on Trump, and the other in which you contrasted that you didn't remember any or many injunctions against Biden except possibly a few referencing Covid. My reference to Trump going beyond his presidential powers was a direct reference to those remarks.
You are dealing with a different issue in above post than the one to which I was responding. I do not believe any policy legal or not should be specific to one person, except in reference to a weakness that this specific person exploited for the first time. That would leave it open to similar exploits that had been newly exposed. But that's the only way it should vaguely refer to a specific personal use in the way it is worded.
More so in the past 10 years than ever. And vice versa for those conservative justices ruling if it had baen under Biden. There is very little bias the Republicans have that the Democrats don't espouse in similar proportions, and vice versa. The vice versa often seems to be left out of your posts. If stated often enough, and not stated often enough, people tend to believe that is your view.
Last edited:
Similar threads
