caryking said:
Civilized said:
caryking said:
Civilized said:
hokiewolf said:
GuerrillaPack said:
Quote:
Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end.
Congress needs to do its job and take this out of the Judiciary. When you take shortcuts via fiat, you open yourselves up to all kinds of interpretations
What's hard about this?
Legislate so you don't have to adjudicate a million haphazard and legally spurious executive orders.
Anyone who claims judges can't check unconstitutionally wielded executive power are drunk on authority, and nobody elected Trump to be a wannabe king handing down unconstitutional edicts.
Trump got elected to push a particular agenda, but what many people have evidently forgotten is that he can't push that agenda unilaterally and/or unconstitutionally as judged by courts not by that smarmy Richard, Stephen Miller.
I listened to a snippet of Stephen Miller with a commentator on CNN. He actually swayed me more to Trumps side. Prior to that, I was very unsure on this.
The Statute is very clear in its words and the actions of the Trump admin looks to be clear in their actions. Now, the judge really shouldn't have the power to disrupt a clear constitutional power, with support by legislation. I believe any normal judge wouldn't have ever interceded with this, thus the activist judge description.
Civ, this video has changed my position on this…
https://www.clayandbuck.com/must-watch-stephen-miller-destroys-cnn-host
Cool, it will clearly be overturned on appeal then.
Activist judge, poor legal support for their ruling. Open and shut.
That's what the appellate court is there for.
Did you watch the video? Watching the video may sway your thoughts.
Edit: I know you didn't watch the video as you posted four minutes after me. Civ, that really shows that you are truly in a fantasy and have TDS in the worst possible way. I think you can be better…
I'm not trying to be dense here Cary, I just don't put too much stock in what you or I or that weirdo Stephen Miller or other internet randos think about nuanced acts passed 230 years ago. That is way above our pay grade and for many of us, above our intellectual capacity.
I watched the first couple of minutes and it does nothing to change my opinion that Stephen Miller is exponentially less equipped to pontificate on the powers of the courts than judges and other legal experts.
We're laymen. We delegate that authority to experts in the courts to analyze legal merits and render legal judgments, especially when the act in question and its interpretation rely on 230 years of case law.
We have a whole great system of government and institutions and courts to handle these cases and conflicts that arise from them. We can't do our own research on literally everything that happens in the world, especially those things where we've delegated very capable authorities and systems to adjudicate them.
So yeah...if the administration thinks a judge is out of line with their ruling they can appeal the ruling. That's how we've handled this for 250 years.
