re: Schumer says US in constitutional crisis, calls Trump ‘a lawless, angry man’

quote:

---

I see you didn't refute a single thing I said, because you know it is all true.
most of your post was little more than childish footstomping. I responded to the only part that was reasonably coherent.

---

I see you still haven't refuted anything I said.

My post was not "childish footstomping", and it was quite coherent with proper grammar. It was a rebuke of you and your buttbuddy lawyers/judges' bullshite.
Why don't you enlighten us all on how I am wrong instead of accusing me of what all you leftist sympathizers actually do.

ask one single coherent question, and I will try to respond to it. I enjoy having discussions.

it is difficult (and annoying) trying to respond to every point raised in a rambling, multi paragraph rant.

quote:

---

I asked one

---

Most narcissists are condescending and won’t answer. They also don’t possess common sense. It’s a shame, thinking they are smarter than everyone else but they aren’t even on the same level.

quote:

---

No, again, you posted a multi paragraph rant. again, if you want to post one coherent question, I would be glad to try and answer it. Or you could just try to be cute.

---

Exhibit A…

“I would be glad to answer your question, if you just tell me what your question is.”

“WHY are you refusing to answer my question?”

FFS

HERE is the post that started this discussion

quote:

---

And therein lies the problem, which you conveniently ignore. They are not participating in good faith, they are being actively partisan/political and using their judicial authority to subvert Executive powers clearly granted in the Constitution. These jackleg lawyers are forum shopping to file these injunctions with leftist hack judges who they know are going to rule against Trump even though he clearly is within his Constitutional boundaries in running the Executive branch. You know it just like everybody else knows it, you just want to play the contrarian.

---

I do not even see a question in that mess, though I did respond to the “forum shopping“ comment.

Grandiose delusions are a type of false belief that can negatively impact a person's psyche. They involve exaggerated beliefs about self-worth, power, knowledge, or identity.

Fits him perfectly.

quote:

---

“I would be glad to answer your question, if you just tell me what your question is.”

“WHY are you refusing to answer my question?”

FFS

---

I haven't asked you any question dumbass.

I made a statement about second rate lawyers and political hack judges stepping way out of bounds trying to block Trump from exercising his Constitutional authority as head of the Executive Branch of our government.

You continue to respond with obfuscation and condescending remarks and have STILL yet to tell us how I am wrong in my statement.

I expect yet another useless waste of words response from you, because you know I am right and you cannot refute what I have said.

quote:

---

The MSN MSNBC headlines are saying that Judge Boasberg will arrest Trump's DOJ lawyers...

---

I wonder who he will get to make an arrest. One of his fat bailiffs.

quote:

---

How can a judge be read as proggy or conservative if the are applying the law equally and acting in good faith?

---

Because there are different schools of interpretation of both the constitution and statues. For instance, textualism, originalism, or living document.

yes, “conservatives” tend to favor textualism or something like it, while the left tend to favor the “living document” school of interpretation.

belonging to different schools of interpretation does not equate to “bad faith.“. it is just a different way of looking at the constitution.

I am a nearly-rabid textualist. But I would never claim that someone who believes in the “living document“ theory is acting at “bad faith.“ I simply disagree with his form of analysis.