• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chief justice rebuts Trump on criticism of judges

For the record the SC reverses a lower court decision 70% of the time. The 9th is reversed about 79% of the time. It is not the most reversed circuit, the 6th is at about 87% of the time. It isn’t even the second most reversed circuit the 11th is.

The 6th covers Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan all of which are red states if I recall.

Just in the interest of accuracy ya understand.

My! How dare you challenge 5th Avenue Trumpistas' 'Dear Leader,' with things as mundane as facts and objective reality!:)
 
Fair.



No, that's not fair. You haven't documented anything specific to this topic yet.

Need a better one-two punch cause that was a nothing love tap.



I think this a mis-characterization. I believe the ROI was that troops can shoot back if attacked, such as with rocks or Molotov cocktails being thrown at them, and it was framed as a self defense measure.

Lt.Gen. retired Mark Hertling put it precisely when he said the Laws of Land Warfare prohibit this or anything like it. Armed forces troops are instructed, educated, trained to include tested in the laws of war. That's national law and international law. Infantry troops forming and executing a firing line opposite unarmed civilians is slaughter or massacre -- it isn't war. This is the only framework that exists so the ROE need to be consistent with the framework. If you were in the armed forces and did what you advocate you'd be put to courts martial. The reason is that the laws to include the Uniform Code of Military Justice mandate that you refuse any illegal order, to include an immoral order.

If you simply advocated it you'd fail your education and testing and have to repeat. You wouldn't want to fail it the second time because that would likely be the end of your access to firearms and explosives -- you'd be subject instead to being assigned as platoon barracks orderly or something mop and broom similar. Army would ensure you become a eunuch soldier. Mess orderly is another possibility. Abandon all hope of promotion also. Army has a place for everyone so fear not. Just remember the old saying that military justice is to justice as military music is to music.





This in the context of Trump 'exploiting the Constitution to work the triumph of their will'. Please elaborate when and where you believe that Trump is doing this. Should be interesting reading.

You sound like you've been away the past three years or so. If that's the case then welcome back. Now it would be your individual responsibility to read the threads to catch up. (You might want to hire a researcher.) Hold on tight cause cause the whole of it is ghastly. One would expect it to bring you over to this side but then again the thought could be problematical -- at best.
 
Thanks. The decision still saddens me. Corporations, for example, are not assemblages of people, they are given special status as "persons" by the state for legit reasons. No reason the state cannot also prohibit them from having undue influence politically simply because of their size and wealth, a status the state facilitated. No reason I have to go one on one with Exxon when trying to influence politicians. Old B.C. comic strip years ago discussed evolution:

"It means that lower live forms evolved into higher ones -- lizards, then some mammals, then apes, then man."
"What, then, is higher than man?"
"Money."

You're welcome. I understand what you're saying. It's a two edged sword. Yes it gives corporations the ability to get their own message out a lot louder than you but it did the same for unions, which would be viewed as a good thing by many workers' rights people. As well giving the government any power to censor political speech is extremely dangerous. I was honestly horrified when I read the opinion and related documents and saw the powers that the government claimed it had.

Personally I think the real issue here, and with most things that are wrong in this country, is that people simply aren't smart enough to actually make a free society work.
 
You're welcome. I understand what you're saying. It's a two edged sword. Yes it gives corporations the ability to get their own message out a lot louder than you but it did the same for unions, which would be viewed as a good thing by many workers' rights people. As well giving the government any power to censor political speech is extremely dangerous. I was honestly horrified when I read the opinion and related documents and saw the powers that the government claimed it had.

Personally I think the real issue here, and with most things that are wrong in this country, is that people simply aren't smart enough to actually make a free society work.

I know. Some politicians (not going to mention names) say they love low information voters.
 
Need a better one-two punch cause that was a nothing love tap.





Lt.Gen. retired Mark Hertling put it precisely when he said the Laws of Land Warfare prohibit this or anything like it. Armed forces troops are instructed, educated, trained to include tested in the laws of war. That's national law and international law. Infantry troops forming and executing a firing line opposite unarmed civilians is slaughter or massacre -- it isn't war. This is the only framework that exists so the ROE need to be consistent with the framework. If you were in the armed forces and did what you advocate you'd be put to courts martial. The reason is that the laws to include the Uniform Code of Military Justice mandate that you refuse any illegal order, to include an immoral order.

If you simply advocated it you'd fail your education and testing and have to repeat. You wouldn't want to fail it the second time because that would likely be the end of your access to firearms and explosives -- you'd be subject instead to being assigned as platoon barracks orderly or something mop and broom similar. Army would ensure you become a eunuch soldier. Mess orderly is another possibility. Abandon all hope of promotion also. Army has a place for everyone so fear not. Just remember the old saying that military justice is to justice as military music is to music.







You sound like you've been away the past three years or so. If that's the case then welcome back. Now it would be your individual responsibility to read the threads to catch up. (You might want to hire a researcher.) Hold on tight cause cause the whole of it is ghastly. One would expect it to bring you over to this side but then again the thought could be problematical -- at best.

I'm finding your rant posts disconnected from reality.

Good bye.
 
I'm finding your rant posts disconnected from reality.

Good bye.

Not so fast. You could stumble and fall down.

What you see as rant is my discussion. You cite Trump while I cite the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And I noted that you need to consider the old saying, military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

So, ta cause you can go now just walk instead of scurrying off with your tail between your legs.

Except for this perhaps...

"I'm finding your rant posts disconnected from reality." Please elaborate when and where you believe that I am doing this. Should be interesting reading.

Unless you might have something more of course.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom