- 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: The elephant in the room regarding boasberg/venezuelan gangs.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump disobeying a valid/legal court order
Opinions vary, and the facts are far from clear.
You make a lot of definitive statements, where the facts are not definitive.
1
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:43 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Look up Norm Eisen and all the things this guy has done related to Trump.
He oversaw USAID payments
He also had impeachment papers drafted before Trump ever took office in 2016.
The Globalists are trying to stop Trump and he is wrecking their shite.
He oversaw USAID payments
He also had impeachment papers drafted before Trump ever took office in 2016.
The Globalists are trying to stop Trump and he is wrecking their shite.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Can you produce a Bill of Illegal Alien Rights?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:14 pm to Warboo
quote:
quote:
"national security", which is doubling down. If they're right, not a big deal but if they're wrong? It's a very big deal.
National security is a matter of opinion. The Trump admin. has stated that it is in fact a matter of "national security" which is their opinion. When does a judge get to decide that his opinion is that it is not? This will never fly
That's what many are missing here.... National security matters are under the Executive jurisdiction. If Trump deems illegals here killing, raping, and terrorizing American citizens is a matter of national security and invokes a Constitutional law to deal with it, that's the prerogative of the President.
The guy who we elected president that won the popular vote and the electoral votes.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:15 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
That's what many are missing here.... National security matters are under the Executive jurisdiction.
Correct.
But the discussion is if these actions fall under "national security".
quote:
The guy who we elected president that won the popular vote and the electoral votes.
Is still limited by the Constitutional and statutory authority being analyzed.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:16 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Opinions vary, and the facts are far from clear.
You make a lot of definitive statements, where the facts are not definitive.
My statement was within the framing of the post I quoted, which is a "could" scenario. It's not a proclamation of impropriety, just an analysis of the public's possible response to impropriety.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:17 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
every week it seems like Trump releases another rake for them to step on
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:20 pm to BugAC
quote:
But it's not. Not even close.
The analysis is whether or not the actions fall within statutory authority.
It's the same analysis every time, whether "national security" or "student loan forgiveness"
quote:
The purse strings are with Congress, not the President.
CARES distributed trillions. Biden's interpretation was how those trillions were to be used. The court ruled this interpretation of how those funds should be directed was outside the statutory authority given to Biden.
quote:
Can you state where in our constitution it states that lower court judges enforce national security?
Not a relevant question.
Courts decide whether Presidents exceed their statutory or Constitutional authority when justifying actions with "national security". Courts don't "enforce" the law.
quote:
Can you state where in our constitution, the judiciary is the determiner of national security status?
Marbury v. Madison
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct.
But the discussion is if these actions fall under "national security".
So your argument is that the nation is more secure with thousands of criminal illegals running around committing crimes against Americans?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:22 pm to troyt37
quote:
So your argument is that the nation is more secure with thousands of criminal illegals running around committing crimes against Americans?
No, but your strawman use is noted.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why wouldn't the judge recuse himself? Clear conflict of interest.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:27 pm to CR4090
quote:
Why wouldn't the judge recuse himself? Clear conflict of interest.
Why didn't the admin file a motion to recuse is the correct question
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
In the next election there should be ads running 24/7 about all the idiotic policies dems have backed including bringing in illegal criminals and then fighting to keep them.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the discussion is if these actions fall under "national security".
quote:
quote:
So your argument is that the nation is more secure with thousands of criminal illegals running around committing crimes against Americans?
No, but your strawman use is noted.
You actually are a character in Atlas Shrugged, I just haven't nailed down which one yet.
The answer to whether these actions fall under "national security" does not rest upon whether the nation is more secure by having taken the action. Is that what we are to understand?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why didn't the admin file a motion to recuse is the correct question
If the judge wasn't a crook, they wouldn't have to ask, would they? Do all recusals only come after a motion is filed? Or do honest judges recuse themselves because they have conflicts?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:On Saturday when the judge was calling ATC trying to get aircraft to return?
Why didn't the admin file a motion to recuse is the correct question
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:51 pm to troyt37
quote:
You actually are a character in Atlas Shrugged, I just haven't nailed down which one yet.
Just because you got called out on using a (pretty bad) straw man doesn't require you to break down.
quote:
The answer to whether these actions fall under "national security" does not rest upon whether the nation is more secure by having taken the action. Is that what we are to understand?
Correct.
One is an evaluation of actions within a statutory framework with no commentary whatsoever on the impact of those decisions on society.
The other is solely a prediction and subjective evaluation of the impact of the decision on society.
This is a common rhetorical failure on here by the emotive types who have to ultimately retreat to emotional reasoning (scary bad man bad for national security) to avoid the higher-level discussion going on.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:52 pm to troyt37
quote:
Or do honest judges recuse themselves because they have conflicts?
What is the specific conflict alleged here?
Posted on 3/18/25 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
One is an evaluation of actions within a statutory framework with no commentary whatsoever on the impact of those decisions on society.
Actions taken in the interests of national security are not proved by the impact of those actions and decisions on society. Balph Eubank! It's you!
Actions taken in the interests of national security ARE ONLY proven by the impact of those actions on society, Balph, you wretched fool.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 1:03 pm to troyt37
quote:
Actions taken in the interests of national security are not proved by the impact of those actions and decisions on society.
You're mis-stating it
The question/analysis is whether the actions are within the statutory authority to claim they are "in the interests of national security". That has nothing to do with the impact of the decision on society.
Had Biden said he was forgiving student loans "in the interest of national security", you'd say that was illegal, correct? Why? Because student loans are not part of the statutory framework that permits Biden from delving into "national security".
Does stating the above make any comment about whether forgiving student loans is a good/bad policy? Or if forgiving student loans was positive or negative for society? No.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News