- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has govt ever defied a president like this?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:02 am to mahdragonz
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:02 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Do you think the constitution is wrong?
Your question contains the premise that these judges are correctly applying the constitution.
I reject that premise.
0
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:11 am to deltaland
quote:hahahahaha what
Completely ignoring EOs, judges blocking shite with no legal reason. It's fricking ridiculous
Complete disrespect for the president
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:13 am to td01241
quote:That's fricking retarded.
Agree. Declare war now and I'll be in Cali killing libs by noon.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:17 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:Dude there are doctors in my hospital who can't get back into the US to see and treat their patients because they went to visit family in their home countries. This shite is happening all over the country. It's why Washington State filed a lawsuit vs the government and won--the EO unconstitutionally blocks people with jobs from reentering the country. This creates an actual burden on the state because businesses rely on people who are affected by the EO.
In the current matter, letting in potential terrorists without vetting UNQUESTIONABLY outweighs the passive, potential burden on Washington or Minnesota.
The Texas decision set a legal precedent that's going to be used against Trump's order
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 7:19 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:20 am to deltaland
quote:
Completely ignoring EOs, judges blocking shite with no legal reason.
Right. No legal reason at all. Absolutely none. Theyre just making it up.......just like the protesters in fact: they have no factual grounds or legal basis for their concerns about Trump's recent actions -they're only doing it to be mean to Trump. Unbelievable.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:24 am to a want
How bad will you melt when this gets shot down, because it will. Clearly defined in law is the fact the executive controls immigration. What if someone comes in over the next week and shoots your mother? What if Trump gets pissed and decides to stop being nice to Dems and turns this into white utopia?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:24 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
This creates an actual burden on the state because businesses rely on people who are affected by the EO.
So leftists are getting on board with the 10th Amendment?
I see a silver lining here.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 7:25 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:28 am to a want
The Dems have already stated that they were going to fight Trump in many ways. Once of those stated methods was in the courts. I suspect that there will be a historical number of court cases filled against a President over the next 4 years.
I also suspect that this escalation of an existing strategy will lead to more of the same from R's the next time a D is President.
I completely support checks and balances but using the courts just to disrupt government should have reprecussions.
One way tournament baseball handles disputes is requiring the complaintant to put out $100. If they lose their protest, they lose the $100. Perhaps something similar should apply to protesting the President in the court system. This would make both sides really think about what they are doing.
My other fear is that the Rs use the nuclear option for the Supreme Court nominee. That's just going to make the Ds do it next time. We'll be living in a nuclear political age. That doesn't sound wonderful to me.
Everything needs to be toned down from the rioting to overzealous use of the courts (if that is indeed what's happening).
These are not good times but this has been coming to a head and both parties are equally responsible in different ways and sometimes even in the same ways.
I also suspect that this escalation of an existing strategy will lead to more of the same from R's the next time a D is President.
I completely support checks and balances but using the courts just to disrupt government should have reprecussions.
One way tournament baseball handles disputes is requiring the complaintant to put out $100. If they lose their protest, they lose the $100. Perhaps something similar should apply to protesting the President in the court system. This would make both sides really think about what they are doing.
My other fear is that the Rs use the nuclear option for the Supreme Court nominee. That's just going to make the Ds do it next time. We'll be living in a nuclear political age. That doesn't sound wonderful to me.
Everything needs to be toned down from the rioting to overzealous use of the courts (if that is indeed what's happening).
These are not good times but this has been coming to a head and both parties are equally responsible in different ways and sometimes even in the same ways.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:28 am to td01241
quote:
? What if Trump gets pissed and decides to stop being nice to Dems and turns this into white utopia?
Are you're saying Trump supporters would get behind such a move?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:30 am to a want
quote:
Are you're saying Trump supporters would get behind such a move?
Sure some would. Some post here I think. Just like some Obama supporters would support a black or brown utopia. There are loons everywhere.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 7:31 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:35 am to a want
I'd be all for it. We have black brown yellow countries all around the world. Time to make a white one. Everyone here can stay and only whites can come in. 200 years we will be good.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:35 am to roadGator
Sure, there will be more activity in the courts, but Trumps actions aren't exactly run of the mill....these are controversial issues.
Ra won't have to use the nuclear option, at least this round. There are ads in the senate up for reelection in red states. It won't be necessary.
Ra won't have to use the nuclear option, at least this round. There are ads in the senate up for reelection in red states. It won't be necessary.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:41 am to roadGator
quote:Ds will do it next time, regardless. Just as with Biden and Bork, once Dingy Harry crossed that Rubicon, there was no going back.
My other fear is that the Rs use the nuclear option for the Supreme Court nominee. That's just going to make the Ds do it next time.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:43 am to a want
What actions have been out of the ordinary other than the 7 country travel hiatus meant to review the vetting process?
Here's a conversation I had with one of my children about this in bullet points.
-#1 role of FedGov is to protect the US
- President is leader of FedGov and citizens
- IF, I said IF, he really thinks that the vetting process has holes or needs reviewed for improvement how can I be mad at him for doing what he thinks is right for the country. Now, IF, I said IF, he is doing this to be mean to Muslims and that's his sole motivation then I will not support such actions.
Which of the two ifs is more likely and I left that decision up to the child.
Here's a conversation I had with one of my children about this in bullet points.
-#1 role of FedGov is to protect the US
- President is leader of FedGov and citizens
- IF, I said IF, he really thinks that the vetting process has holes or needs reviewed for improvement how can I be mad at him for doing what he thinks is right for the country. Now, IF, I said IF, he is doing this to be mean to Muslims and that's his sole motivation then I will not support such actions.
Which of the two ifs is more likely and I left that decision up to the child.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:45 am to a want
quote:
R's won't have to use the nuclear option, at least this round. There are D's in the senate up for reelection in red states.
This is how I read your post.
Do you really think enough D's will succumb to grassroots pressure to overcome the filibuster?? and then have to live with the ire of their 'tolerance loving' brethren D's in the future? They don't like sitting/chairing the plum committee assignments?
I don't have that much confidence in the integrity of any DEM in national office at the moment - I am beginning to even doubt Manchin.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:46 am to deltaland
quote:This too shall pass. The Trump era has just begun. It's like those forest fires we thought would never go out. They all eventually burn themselves out. Sit tight. You're watching very small, irrelevant people with very big microphones.
Has govt ever defied a president like this?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 7:59 am to deltaland
Has a president ever acted in such reckless distegard before? If so give spevific examples.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:02 am to roadGator
If the president was trying to defend America wouldn't he include nations like saudi Arabia and Pakistan that has produced terrorists that are a known threat?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:06 am to Hog on the Hill
Dude economic harm is not usually considered irreparable under federal law.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:07 am to mahdragonz
This basically sums up this board on any type of Constitutional issue.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News