Bush, of course....
MaggieD, when many Trillions of dollars are at stake, the push back should be expected to be extreme. There is no care about attacks, terrorists, death. The inner circle of the One World Government Globalist Agenda are encouraging the chaos. They are paying for it.
Soros is pouring $10's of millions into his International Migration Initiative. His partners are doing the same thing.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/international-migration-initiative
This is all about global control. The irredeemably gullible aren't trained, nor expected, to understand that.
Well I am dating a Mexican-American.
Either the president has the power to do what he did? Or he doesn't. No court should have the right or ability to second-guess a lawful order by POTUS. Seems to me that's exactly what they're doing.
Jesus ****ing Christ.
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
:agree: Washington DC's domination of world affairs has been unchallenged for many years, which makes us a royal pain in the *** to the globalists, who hate our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They had been making some headway during the latter part of 20th Century, and continuing into this Century with the men - from both parties - that we elected as POTUS, but then along came Trump, who appears to have upset the globalist apple cart with his "America First" slogan, so we are just beginning to see the results of the Inner Circle's rage at the stubbornness of millions of voters!
How anyone could prefer to take orders from a small group of billionaire elitists who live in a country located elsewhere in the world is a puzzle to me, but that's the choice we are apparently being given. Does the average "man on the street" citizen of this Country honestly believe that their lives will be improved when we will mean nothing more to the globalists than a person living in Honduras, Bangladesh, or Greece? Good luck with that thinking, since I wouldn't count on being exempt from their agenda, although China and possibly Russia may be, because of their refusal to back down on using their nuclear weapons capability if necessary! :shock:
Helpful, Deuce.
Someone who doesn't believe in checks and balances anymore can't be helped.
Everything a President does can be second-guessed. The founding fathers were extremely careful in making sure that's the case.
How many times did you criticize Obama's executive orders?
Seriously...a court can overturn a lawful action of the President? I think you're wrong. And if you're right, then there is no check and balance on the courts.
What does your last sentence have to do with anything?
Who decides which actions are lawful? You, apparently.
No check and balance on courts? Jesus ****ing Christ...
Perhaps you should stop Jesus ****ing Christ and enlighten the rest of us. I'm guessing you don't understand what I am saying. Insulting me is not the way to get clarification, Deuce.
Perhaps you should stop Jesus ****ing Christ and enlighten the rest of us. I'm guessing you don't understand what I am saying. Insulting me is not the way to get clarification, Deuce.
I do understand. It's just frustrating because I know you know this stuff, Maggie.
Federal judges are an appointed position.
Federal judges are confirmed by Congress.
Federal judges can be impeached.
Congress may change a law if they don't like its application or result in court.
These are all checks and balances against judicial powers.
You keep calling it a "lawful order," but that's skipping over a step in determining whether or not the order actually is lawful. This is the process we're in.
Either the president has the power to do what he did? Or he doesn't. No court should have the right or ability to second-guess a lawful order by POTUS. Seems to me that's exactly what they're doing.
The person(s) who carry out the attack is responsible for their actions.
Yeah, were on the same page. I don't understand why you JFC me the first time. Here's what I posted that elicited that response from you...
My point being that the court's job is to determine if the POTUS could legally issue such an order. They have absolutely no authority to uphold the injunction just because they disagree with it or don't think it's necessary. Is it constitutional? THAT’S their only consideration.
What is JFC about that?
Yeah, were on the same page. I don't understand why you JFC me the first time. Here's what I posted that elicited that response from you...
My point being that the court's job is to determine if the POTUS could legally issue such an order. They have absolutely no authority to uphold the injunction just because they disagree with it or don't think it's necessary. Is it constitutional? THAT’S their only consideration.
What is JFC about that?
As I posted in another thread, I'm completely flummoxed by the district court's handling of their decision process re enforcing the temporary travel ban. The language giving the POTUS the power to issue the EO is crystal clear. He has that power, there's no question in my mind. But the court is weighing whether or not the temp ban is NECESSARY. That's not their job. They don't get security briefings.
Seriously...a court can overturn a lawful action of the President? I think you're wrong. And if you're right, then there is no check and balance on the courts.
What does your last sentence have to do with anything?
I do understand. It's just frustrating because I know you know this stuff, Maggie.
Federal judges are an appointed position.
Federal judges are confirmed by Congress.
Federal judges can be impeached.
Congress may change a law if they don't like its application or result in court.
These are all checks and balances against judicial powers.
You keep calling it a "lawful order," but that's skipping over a step in determining whether or not the order actually is lawful. This is the process we're in.
The part where you said a court should not have the right to second-guess an order of the President.
You called it a "lawful" order, which is how I'm sure you internally justified the statement. But without this "second-guessing," which the rest of us call "judicial review," or "rule of law," or "checks and balances," all orders are lawful because there's nobody with authority to stop them. Some people call that a monarch instead of a president.
Maggie, you're actually complaining that this review process exists in the first place. Because that's what this judge is doing with the "second-guessing" that you're against. Reviewing the order.
Let me explain further.
The injunction was executed ex-parta, which by law only requires the judge to rule on the prima facie claim that the EO violates the constitution. Which is to say that the burden on the plaintiff is only to make a showing that what it says is true appears to be true on its face. The judge in this case had no opposing argument to consider thus, issued the injunction based on the merits and his obligation by law. The judge himself may not have agreed with it but that is not what judges are supposed to do.
Now, with the 9th Circuit, their job is to determine whether the lower courts ruling was first legal, and second was the ruling sound. The actual merits of the case (Whether there are triable issues to be resolved) is also part of the 9th's broad reach in determining their decision. In this case they have to weigh the merits of each side, and it is my opinion that the plaintiffs argument does not hold water, and it is demonstrably not true on its face. the court can only look at the language of the order, not the minutia propagandized by the MSM, and what people in Trumps camp have stated regarding bans, or any such statements to the media or the public. ONLY the language of the order should be considered, NOT the affect.
Tim-
They can. If the EO is found to be unconstitutional.
If there is a major attack in our country while this bull**** partisan crap is going on, who is to blame?
As I posted in another thread, I'm completely flummoxed by the district court's handling of their decision process re enforcing the temporary travel ban. The language giving the POTUS the power to issue the EO is crystal clear. He has that power, there's no question in my mind. But the court is weighing whether or not the temp ban is NECESSARY. That's not their job. They don't get security briefings.
If there is a major attack in our country while this bull**** partisan crap is going on, who is to blame?
Trump and his ilk for causing all this confusion and chaos and hatred.
Fear mongering doesn't suit you Mags.
I generally blame everything on Steve in Client Services.
Maggie, it is becoming more and more clear to me that the very concept of law in this nation has been destroyed and replaced, per usual, by political expedience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?