• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

GOP. What does the party of law and order tell itself when trump defies a judges orders?

Slartibartfast said:
The proclamation does not show that congress has declared war.
Click to expand...

Or that a foreign govnement invaded.

Just a reminder there are two conditions that can allow a Presidenty to trigger the AEA.

WW
 
Napoleon said:
Don’t have to. SCOTUS ruled in 1948 that these decisions are for the President to make and not subject to judicial review.
Click to expand...
Then there is a basis for appeal instead of defying a court order and creating a lawless situation.
 
Napoleon said:
Don’t have to. SCOTUS ruled in 1948 that these decisions are for the President to make and not subject to judicial review.
Click to expand...

No they didn't.

Why? Because in the Ludecke case (decided 1948) we were still in a declared war at the time the action was ordered (1946).

WW
 
Napoleon said:
The President doesn’t have to obey unconstitutional orders from a district judge in so far over his head it’ll give him a nosebleed.
Click to expand...
Well that is certainly an imaginative fiction designed to support a dictatorship.
 
WorldWatcher said:
No they didn't.

Why? Because in the Ludecke case (decided 1948) we were still in a declared war at the time the action was ordered (1946).

WW
Click to expand...

For anyone that actually wants to see what the SCOTUS said in 1948 the link is below.

We were still in a declared war when Ludecke was detained.

WW
.
.
.
supreme.justia.com

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)

Ludecke v. Watkins
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com
 
The AntiDonald said:
Then why did he promise he would many times over? Is Trump actually that stupid? Never mind, I already know the answer.
Click to expand...

Probably he wanted to see how many liberals would act as you have......lol. If so, it worked....it's been hilarious.
 
Napoleon said:
You’ll have to take that up with SCOTUS. They held the judiciary has no jurisdiction in these matters.
Click to expand...

No they didn't.

The SCOTUS found we were still in a declared war in 1946 when the individual was detained.

WW
 
Napoleon said:
You’ll have to take that up with SCOTUS. They held the judiciary has no jurisdiction in these matters.
Click to expand...
The good news is that if the Trump administration follows the constitution and appeals, it will likely end up at SCOTUS. So, given that, your suggestion is actually the correct one.
 
Slartibartfast said:
The good news is that if the Trump administration follows the constitution and appeals, it will likely end up at SCOTUS. So, given that, your suggestion is actually the correct one.
Click to expand...
The good news is that we have a President who will not allow some left wing hack judge to ignore his superiors and usurp the powers of the Executive. And there’s not a damn thing that judge can do about it.
 
Napoleon said:
The good news is that we have a President who will not allow some left wing hack judge to ignore his superiors and usurp the powers of the Executive. And there’s not a damn thing that judge can do about it.
Click to expand...
We are in lawlessness then. This is a binary issue.
 
dockside said:
Please tell us when Congress declared war and on which country. Because none of the above applies to what you are extolling above. Since we are not in a declared war, the expulsion of criminals must be supported by a determination that they expelled are criminal immigrants via due process. Have you ever heard of that term? Do you know what it means?
Click to expand...

Where the hell was the due process in permitting them to enter without proper vetting of simply following the laws we already have? Who in the HELL gave Biden and the democrats the right to use taxpayer monies to pay NGO's to facilitate the migration of illegal immigrants into our nation?
 
dockside said:
The ridiculous applies to Trump's saying that he would bring down the cost on Day 1 and his supplicants believing it then, but now say the ridiculousness is blaming him for the high costs of eggs.
Click to expand...

Only gullible liberals believed Trump can bring the price of eggs down on day 1 when they've been killing millions and millions of egg laying chickens for the previous three years......do you feel like a joker now?
 
Fearandloathing said:
All through history the threat of "violent gangs" has fed a paranoia that has allowed the likes of Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump.

As usual, it's a total fabrication. "violent gangs" are ALWAYS the reason for martial law. It's also the phrase the initially used after nine innocent bystanders where gunned down by the National Guard in 1969 in Ohio.

There's always "violent gangs" where ever the cameras are not!
Click to expand...

Well, I guess they are just "good ole boys" from Venezuela, all tattooed up, selling drugs, assaulting, killing, scaring the hell out of people......hell, they are fruitcakes, huh?
 
bongsaway said:
Bring on those justifications, I'm curious to hear them.
Click to expand...
Frequently I wonder where the power of a lower court has the constitutional authority to issue orders to the President. Maybe SCOTUS since it is also created in the Constitution specifically to rule on the constitutional matters, but some third level judge in a judicial district?
 
Ikari said:
They say something like "it's partisan, biased judges" or that "judges don't have the right to interfere with the executive branch".
Click to expand...
Or they claim such judges are "rogue judges." 🙄
 
Bullseye said:
Frequently I wonder where the power of a lower court has the constitutional authority to issue orders to the President. Maybe SCOTUS since it is also created in the Constitution specifically to rule on the constitutional matters, but some third level judge in a judicial district?
Click to expand...
Is the president above the law?
 
Bullseye said:
Frequently I wonder where the power of a lower court has the constitutional authority to issue orders to the President. Maybe SCOTUS since it is also created in the Constitution specifically to rule on the constitutional matters, but some third level judge in a judicial district?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does have authority. Whether a court is "high" or "low" matters little. Unless a higher court overturns a lower court through due process, the lower court ruling is in legal effect.
 
bongsaway said:
Is the president above the law?
Click to expand...
I think the President himself certainly thinks so. The real question is, why would anyone support a President who thinks or acts like they are not bound to the law like everyone else? Dictators have that kind of thinking.
 
Gordy327 said:
Yes, it does have authority. Whether a court is "high" or "low" matters little. Unless a higher court overturns a lower court through due process, the lower court ruling is in legal effect.
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom