• 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!

If Trump is not behaving as an authoritarian

iguanaman said:
LOL Having a brain fart are you?
Click to expand...

I think you may be confused. I can't see where I was defending anything. I also suspect that if I was, you would be more than happy to point it out rather than rely on vague insinuation.
 
RF667799 said:
I think you may be confused. I can't see where I was defending anything. I also suspect that if I was, you would be more than happy to point it out rather than rely on vague insinuation.
Click to expand...
Good then you agree that Trump's felony convictions were all indefensible and completely justified. Hallelujah
 
ColdHardTruth said:
I would say most are attempting to follow the law. This is something that the GOP is not doing.

Most of the time this had more to do with GQP control over certain courts.

I agree. MAGA judges are not high quality. They are effectively a kangaroo court.
Click to expand...

Shrug.
When a decision goes your way, it's because the judge has made a well reasoned decision.
When it goes against your way, the judge is corrupt.

Such is the sophistication of progressive legal thinking...
 
iguanaman said:
Good then you agree that Trump's felony convictions were all indefensible and completely justified. Hallelujah
Click to expand...

I don't believe I commented on that subject. Perhaps you can quote me.
 
ataraxia said:
South Chicago is swimming in guns. You are right I would probably want to drive through there with an Abrams tank.

But that's just because we live in a gun culture.

You know where there has the most frequency of the defensive use of firearms? A war zone. But does that make it the safest place to live? That's what the NRA is pushing for us to live in, because that's where they can sell the most of their products. I would rather live here, where firearmsare banned altogether, and crime is lower than war zones where there have to be so many defensive uses of firearms:

View attachment 67578660
Click to expand...
Looks too peaceful.
 
You mean having Jeffrey Epstein killed? That was kind of a give away.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Shrug.
When a decision goes your way, it's because the judge has made a well reasoned decision.
When it goes against your way, the judge is corrupt.
Click to expand...
Sadly, with the MAGA issues this country has, most decisions that favor them are based on a corrupt judge.
Athanasius68 said:
Such is the sophistication of progressive legal thinking...
Click to expand...
 
ataraxia said:
South Chicago is swimming in guns. You are right I would probably want to drive through there with an Abrams tank.

But that's just because we live in a gun culture.

You know where there has the most frequency of the defensive use of firearms? A war zone. But does that make it the safest place to live? That's what the NRA is pushing for us to live in, because that's where they can sell the most of their products. I would rather live here, where firearmsare banned altogether, and crime is lower than war zones where there have to be so many defensive uses of firearms:

View attachment 67578660
Click to expand...

Why are you not posting from there if that's where you would rather live, and it's such an existential hazard to be living here?

I bet it's more peaceful where I live, and there are lots of people with guns here. They're by and large peaceful people though, and that is more predictive of peacefulness than how many guns are around.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ok-- so district court judges are not letting personal political biases influence their rulings.
Fair enough.

So when their decisions are invariably being overturned or stayed by higher level courts, it must be due to the poorer quality of their legal reasoning.

So why would judges be unfit to sit on scotus or I guess appellate courts? We should all want high quality judges and justices.
Click to expand...

Certainly you have seen a few Supreme Court judges' confirmation process by now. They are far more political affairs than appointments to lower level courts.

Solid reasoning doesn't get you on the SC these days. Being solidly and dependably partisan does.

Also, lower level judges feel far more confined to following precedent, because no judge wants their decisions overturned. This particular Supreme Court has shown a willingness, even an eagerness, to overturn precedents that Republicans want overturned.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Certainly you have seen a few Supreme Court judges' confirmation process by now. They are far more political affairs than appointments to lower level courts.

Solid reasoning doesn't get you on the SC these days. Being solidly and dependably partisan does.

Also, lower level judges feel far more confined to following precedent, because no judge wants their decisions overturned. This particular Supreme Court has shown a willingness, even an eagerness, to overturn precedents that Republicans want overturned.
Click to expand...

Such hearings become political as the nominees are grappling with constitutional issues.

Let's face it-- a district judge who makes up his own immigration law, or a district judge who says Congress lacks the power to appropriate funds are not offering up solid legal reasoning.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Such hearings become political as the nominees are grappling with constitutional issues.

Let's face it-- a district judge who makes up his own immigration law, or a district judge who says Congress lacks the power to appropriate funds are not offering up solid legal reasoning.
Click to expand...
So you agree Trump cannot repurpose money that congress has already approved?
 
The Brad Dad said:
So you agree Trump cannot repurpose money that congress has already approved?
Click to expand...

Domestically-- provided the discretion is granted by Congress to the president.
Foreign policy-- the issue gets dicier.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Enter legally and there will be no problem.
Click to expand...
Why don't they?

Many immigrants, especially those seeking to reach the United States from Central and South America, embark on incredibly dangerous and grueling journeys. The reasons for undertaking such arduous trips include violence, economic despair, humanitarian crises, and a search for a better future.
 
The Brad Dad said:
Nah, not really.
Click to expand...

Yes really.
That's why President Biden, on his first day in office, was able to stop building the wall Trump had been building. The appropriation for it talked about money for border security.
Trump interpreted border security one way.
Biden interpreted border security another way.

However, the point of #460 was in response to a district court judge ruling last night that Congress MUST appropriate money for Planned Parenthood.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Such hearings become political as the nominees are grappling with constitutional issues.
Click to expand...

Those hearings don't "become" political, they are political from the start of the process, usually when Leonord Leo gives them a list of sufficiently conservative candidates. They are well past the "grappling with issues" stage.

Athanasius68 said:
Let's face it-- a district judge who makes up his own immigration law, or a district judge who says Congress lacks the power to appropriate funds are not offering up solid legal reasoning.
Click to expand...

Let's face it - this doesn't happen much.

Anybody who makes it to this level understands the law and how to interpret it. To make it to the highest level, you need to pass the purity test with your own party, and lie convincingly to the Senate.

Do you really think that Brett Kavanaugh is one of the nine best legal minds in the country?

Point is, the SC is a FAR more partisan court than the lower courts.
 
RF667799 said:
Open borders. You guys all believe in the free movement of goods and people across borders.
Click to expand...
The rule was free movement of goods and companies but not people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom