Civ, that exhibits a lack of courage to think. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Miller (in fact, I understand why some may not); however, saying he isn't equipped to pontificate speaks more about you, than him. Some would say (and I'm one of them) that you are exhibiting the TDS, so frequently spoken about...Civilized said:caryking said:Did you watch the video? Watching the video may sway your thoughts.Civilized said:caryking said: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.Civilized said:hokiewolf said: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 interpretationsGuerrillaPack said: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…
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 19, 2025Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
GuerrillaPack said:The U.S. Constitution lays out a process to impeach judges. It is there for good reason.Civilized said:GuerrillaPack said:Yes, we can only trust far-left pundit hacks in the commie Lamestream media and communist Democrat party overlord bosses to get "truthful information". These people are so "not weird" and "sane" with their belief in 70 genders, allowing mentally ill "transgender" freak men to compete in women's sports and use girls' locker rooms, and their worship of mass murdering millions of unborn children.Civilized said:
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.
Those "crazy conspiracy theorist right-wingers" who reject this communist Leftist insanity are so "weird".
No. This has nothing to do with the media or any other perceived OMG grievance of yours.
We can trust the judges, some liberal and some conservative, that we've delegated to judge cases, and the judicial system that's worked well over the last 2+ centuries.
The judiciary in this country has steadily been getting more corrupt, especially in the last 30-40 years. A large portion of judges, and now a majority on many issues (especially on issues related to the 4th Amendment, from both judges on the Left and Right) have been consistently making blatantly unconstitutional rulings -- such as upholding the Patriot Act and other acts that authorize unwarranted spying on the American people and flagrantly violate the 4th Amendment right against unwarranted searches and seizures.
But Leftist Democrat judges are the worst. They by-and-large are issuing unconstitutional rulings on the 2nd Amendment, infringing on the right of the American people to own and carry firearms. And, of course, they dreamed up the "Constitutional rights" to murder unborn children and for LGBTQ Sodomites to get "married", even though those things are clearly not rights mentioned or protected under the Constitution.
Leftist Democrat judges have now shown a CLEAR antagonism towards the U.S. Constitution on a large number of important issues. They are showing themselves to be outright ENEMIES of the Constitution. And that is ground for impeachment.
caryking said:Civ, that exhibits a lack of courage to think. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Miller (in fact, I understand why some may not); however, saying he isn't equipped to pontificate speaks more about you, than him. Some would say (and I'm one of them) that you are exhibiting the TDS, so frequently spoken about...Civilized said:caryking said:Did you watch the video? Watching the video may sway your thoughts.Civilized said:caryking said: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.Civilized said:hokiewolf said: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 interpretationsGuerrillaPack said: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…
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 19, 2025Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
As far as being a laymen... Yes, I would agree that others have more knowledge, on a legal subject than me. That said, a layman doesn't research additional information, to further their knowledge. I do; therefore, I don't consider myself a layman.
Try for once and put aside your TDS (yes, I continue to say that as I believe it's true for you) and listen to the complete video. Then, do research on the subject to further your knowledge. Perhaps, you may learn something. Also, don't accept yourself as being a layman. Your writings certainly tell me you're not a layman, even though we may disagree on an issue.
jkpackfan said:
3 of the 10 most wanted have been nabbed.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/three-fbi-most-wanted-fugitive-arrests-two-months-signals-return-premier-agency-former-agent
Civilized said:GuerrillaPack said:The U.S. Constitution lays out a process to impeach judges. It is there for good reason.Civilized said:GuerrillaPack said:Yes, we can only trust far-left pundit hacks in the commie Lamestream media and communist Democrat party overlord bosses to get "truthful information". These people are so "not weird" and "sane" with their belief in 70 genders, allowing mentally ill "transgender" freak men to compete in women's sports and use girls' locker rooms, and their worship of mass murdering millions of unborn children.Civilized said:
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.
Those "crazy conspiracy theorist right-wingers" who reject this communist Leftist insanity are so "weird".
No. This has nothing to do with the media or any other perceived OMG grievance of yours.
We can trust the judges, some liberal and some conservative, that we've delegated to judge cases, and the judicial system that's worked well over the last 2+ centuries.
The judiciary in this country has steadily been getting more corrupt, especially in the last 30-40 years. A large portion of judges, and now a majority on many issues (especially on issues related to the 4th Amendment, from both judges on the Left and Right) have been consistently making blatantly unconstitutional rulings -- such as upholding the Patriot Act and other acts that authorize unwarranted spying on the American people and flagrantly violate the 4th Amendment right against unwarranted searches and seizures.
But Leftist Democrat judges are the worst. They by-and-large are issuing unconstitutional rulings on the 2nd Amendment, infringing on the right of the American people to own and carry firearms. And, of course, they dreamed up the "Constitutional rights" to murder unborn children and for LGBTQ Sodomites to get "married", even though those things are clearly not rights mentioned or protected under the Constitution.
Leftist Democrat judges have now shown a CLEAR antagonism towards the U.S. Constitution on a large number of important issues. They are showing themselves to be outright ENEMIES of the Constitution. And that is ground for impeachment.
Chief Justice Roberts already called BS on that earlier this week.
GuerrillaPack said:
Democrats…now the party that OPENLY cheerleads and supports violent terrorism to advance their agenda.
Let's see how that works out for you.
https://instagr.am/p/DHbFr5PuY6Y
Oh, so Roberts says that judges can't be impeached? If so, he is lying and issuing yet another unconstitutional and unlawful opinion. Roberts is fake conservative, RINO approved. That's why you love him.Civilized said:
Chief Justice Roberts already called BS on that earlier this week.
LAWFARE: Obama judge has ruled that federal employees loyal to President Trump cannot be allowed to access Social Security data. Only career civil service employees loyal to the Democrat Party can access the data. pic.twitter.com/g1DQoy6OFX
— @amuse (@amuse) March 20, 2025
Oldsouljer said:
Aren't these the same people who abhor their version of the events of Jan 6?
caryking said:Civ, that exhibits a lack of courage to think. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Miller (in fact, I understand why some may not); however, saying he isn't equipped to pontificate speaks more about you, than him. Some would say (and I'm one of them) that you are exhibiting the TDS, so frequently spoken about...Civilized said:caryking said:Did you watch the video? Watching the video may sway your thoughts.Civilized said:caryking said: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.Civilized said:hokiewolf said: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 interpretationsGuerrillaPack said: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…
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 19, 2025Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
As far as being a laymen... Yes, I would agree that others have more knowledge, on a legal subject than me. That said, a layman doesn't research additional information, to further their knowledge. I do; therefore, I don't consider myself a layman.
Try for once and put aside your TDS (yes, I continue to say that as I believe it's true for you) and listen to the complete video. Then, do research on the subject to further your knowledge. Perhaps, you may learn something. Also, don't accept yourself as being a layman. Your writings certainly tell me you're not a layman, even though we may disagree on an issue.
Smapty, you really are an ignorant person…. If you would spend one moment of research, you would really recognize how ignorant you are.SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Civ, that exhibits a lack of courage to think. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Miller (in fact, I understand why some may not); however, saying he isn't equipped to pontificate speaks more about you, than him. Some would say (and I'm one of them) that you are exhibiting the TDS, so frequently spoken about...Civilized said:caryking said:Did you watch the video? Watching the video may sway your thoughts.Civilized said:caryking said: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.Civilized said:hokiewolf said: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 interpretationsGuerrillaPack said: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…
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 19, 2025Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
As far as being a laymen... Yes, I would agree that others have more knowledge, on a legal subject than me. That said, a layman doesn't research additional information, to further their knowledge. I do; therefore, I don't consider myself a layman.
Try for once and put aside your TDS (yes, I continue to say that as I believe it's true for you) and listen to the complete video. Then, do research on the subject to further your knowledge. Perhaps, you may learn something. Also, don't accept yourself as being a layman. Your writings certainly tell me you're not a layman, even though we may disagree on an issue.
Give it a rest. Lol, "research". Seriously man, never mind complex laws, you're not even equipped to see through the completely transparent sleight of hand that hucksters like Stephen Miller pull on you day in and day out. They brazenly assert "truthy" sounding things over and over that if you actually parse them are total bullsh**.
No, a lower court judge doesn't get to have an opinion about troop movements. Does a judge get to have an opinion about if a law that is only operable during wartime is in fact operable right now (which would then give the President the wartime powers he wants). F'ing of course he does.
Same goes for Trump pretending we're in a national emergency in order to allow him to unilaterally jerk tariffs around. Everyone with a lukewarm IQ knows it's bullsh**, and that's congress's job. And a judge will eventually slap him down. And you'll howl about it, because you know the Republican congress is inept and you want a dictator getting stuff done.
So spare us the "Stephen Miller" is a genius crap. He's not, and you're either too clueless to realize it or in on the con.
We need these for AI data centers. Making them more expensive is the opposite of becoming more competitive https://t.co/JFH2iBYarQ
— Mark Collier 柯理怀 (@sparkycollier) March 21, 2025
BREAKING: The United Arab Emirates will invest $1.4 TRILLION in the United States after meeting with President Trump. The 10-year framework will target investments in AI infrastructure, semiconductors, energy, and American manufacturing.
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 21, 2025
Another day, another massive investment… pic.twitter.com/O9Q53oIsFf
The EU was charging 10% tariffs on our vehicles. We charged 2.5% on theirs.
— ⭐️The FJC⭐️ (@The_FJC) March 20, 2025
Trump threatened reciprocal tariffs, RAISING ours to 10%.
Instead, the EU capitulated & reduced their tariffs DOWN to 2.5%.
That's EXACTLY how tariffs help the US when used as a negotiation tool. 👍
This is a great infographic
— Kalu Aja (@FinPlanKaluAja1) March 4, 2025
Look at what the US charges imports and what other nations charge the US
Take cars. The US charges 2.5% tariffs, but China charges 25%, and EU charges 10%
Look at agriculture: the US charges 5%, China charges 15%, the EU 11%, Canada 15% Mexico 14%… pic.twitter.com/Moy2cMHBNS
Unhinged NYC woman loses it on a man in a MAGA hat—then karma knocks her down, literally.🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/aFgrAyxMLC
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) March 21, 2025
Howard Lutnick says that if Social Security didn't send out a check one month, his mother-in-law wouldn't call in and complain, and then says that if you're the type who *would* whine loudly about such a thing, that's an indicator of being a fraudster. https://t.co/SIPjD2lywL
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) March 21, 2025
Very interesting twitter accounts you follow there, turkey man. Singer and Weisenthal...two jewish hardcore Leftists (communists) with severe cases of TDS.hokiewolf said:
This is a great idea!Howard Lutnick says that if Social Security didn't send out a check one month, his mother-in-law wouldn't call in and complain, and then says that if you're the type who *would* whine loudly about such a thing, that's an indicator of being a fraudster. https://t.co/SIPjD2lywL
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) March 21, 2025
I choose not to live in a bubble. But, regardless of who posted it, this is a clip of Howard Lutnick bragging about not paying SS benefits and it being a good idea. Obviously you agree with it since you decided not to challenge the actual content of my post.GuerrillaPack said:Very interesting twitter accounts you follow there, turkey man. Singer and Weisenthal...two jewish hardcore Leftists (communists) with severe cases of TDS.hokiewolf said:
This is a great idea!Howard Lutnick says that if Social Security didn't send out a check one month, his mother-in-law wouldn't call in and complain, and then says that if you're the type who *would* whine loudly about such a thing, that's an indicator of being a fraudster. https://t.co/SIPjD2lywL
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) March 21, 2025
And don't think we forgot about the time you posted something from Brian Stelter to hammer home one of your points.
These don't seem like accounts that "conservatives" follow and then post to make their arguments.
No, I think people should be receive in social security what they "paid in". But even better than that, I think the system should be abolished, because it is a SCAM. Phase it out. Let people have the OPTION to use it as their "retirement plan" or not. You get out far far less than you "pay in". It's a joke. But no, we don't get the option. We are FORCED to pay into this scam...because, of course, the government is in astronomical debt and needs the taxes/payments coming in to pay out what they owe to people who have "paid in" and are retired.hokiewolf said:
I choose not to live in a bubble. But, regardless of who posted it, this is a clip of Howard Lutnick bragging about not paying SS benefits and it being a good idea. Obviously you agree with it since you decided not to challenge the actual content of my post.
