- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Judges are trying to become president.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:04 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:04 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Well that is silly, because the statute has to apply first. Which I am guessing is the central issue at play.
I agree.
quote:
Almost a good question. The actual question of consequence is if he exercised his discretion one way or the other on an invasion force as he's done in this case, wouldn't it also be free from review by the judiciary. The answer to that question is also, of course it would not be subject to judicial review.
he does not
His argument is that the Executive has unlimited authority without judicial review and the only response is Congressional action to change the statute.
0
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're the only person who answered, so I give you credit for that.
I guess your refusal to answer is answer enough.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:06 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I guess your refusal to answer is answer enough.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:41 pm to VoxDawg
I see Slow hasn’t disputed this and doesn’t think these Federal judges are part and parcel too huge government! Protecting us!!??
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:45 pm to Lg
quote:
I see Slow hasn’t disputed this and doesn’t think these Federal judges are part and parcel too huge government! Protecting us!!??
He was prosecuted by attorneys, not a judge.
When the DOJ moved to dismiss, the judge wouldn't, which I disagreed with, rather openly.
I didn't engage in full on meltdown like we're seeing from MAGA about this TDA issue.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When the DOJ moved to dismiss, the judge wouldn't, which I disagreed with, rather openly.
You don’t think it had anything to do with the Judge’s disdain for Trump though, right? Just like all of these DC judges putting forth their edicts against the Trump administration. Have we heard from any Constitutional lawyers weigh in on what these judges are doing?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:59 pm to Lg
Did the courts who enjoined Biden's vaccine mandate do it because of their disdain for Biden?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did the courts who enjoined Biden's vaccine mandate do it because of their disdain for Biden?
There’s a difference between trying to protect the American public and a terrorist organization don’t you think?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:11 pm to Lg
quote:
There’s a difference between trying to protect the American public and a terrorist organization don’t you think?
In terms of this discussion, no.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:12 pm to Lg
But, but, but, … I LIKE it when Courts enjoin presidents that I do not like …
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But, but, but, … I LIKE it when Courts enjoin presidents that I do not like …
No, I like when judges rule on law to PROTECT the American public. Not one thing these judges have done has the interest of American’s at heart.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:22 pm to Lg
quote:
You don’t think it had anything to do with the Judge’s disdain for Trump though, right?
He'll never acknowledge that. The emperor’s clothes are simply too divine.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:22 pm to Lg
quote:Ttere is NOTHING more in the long-term interest of the US than adherence to the Constitution … a document with which Trump seems intent upon wiping his arse.
Not one thing these judges have done has the interest of American’s at heart.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:24 pm to AggieHank86
If you're upset, that's a good indication Trump is doing the right thing.
Please keep melting.
Please keep melting.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:25 pm to Lg
quote:
There’s a difference between trying to protect the American public and a terrorist organization don’t you think?
We trust judges to determine perceived intent now? Regardless of the actions taken to get there? That's pretty fricked up.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 5:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ttere is NOTHING more in the long-term interest of the US than adherence to the Constitution
Maybe you can show me where in the Constitution the judiciary gets to rule on combat readiness and personnel decisions for the military.
Stop! Tranny time!!!
Posted on 3/21/25 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm for small government, so I don't know why you'd be shocked that I would be against this expansive, borderline insane, interpretation of Executive power.
SO AM I. But there are other factors in play, here. It's not a zero sum game we're playing. At some point, intervention of government is a necessity. Hell, government intervention is why you as an attorney have a paycheck. But it's the balance that needs to be struck, as opposed to your position that gov't reach needs to be curbed at all costs.
Page 13 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News