• 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!

(Poll) JD Vance: judges cannot "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for"

Can judges "tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for"

  • Total voters
    88
jaypatriot said:
I want Federal judges to act as guard rails so that the president acts within the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you DO want Judges to have the power to halt or overturn Presidential violations of the Constitution, and your vote in this thread was not representative of your actual position. ?

jaypatriot said:
If a federal judge decides in a partisan fashion to thwart Trump with his Administration's agenda, then who gets to decide if that judge is a guard rail or a partisan activist/obstacle?
Click to expand...

The higher courts. ? If the Administration thinks the Judge has ruled wrongly, they can appeal - all the way to SCOTUS if they like.

But this sort of thing: "judges cannot tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for" is Unconstutional Nonsense. The whole purpose of HAVING a Constitution - of HAVING a Bill of Rights - is to put some questions beyond the reach of a simple one-off plebiscite / election. If JD Vance wants the President to be a dictator unrestrained by checks and balances from the other brances, well, he's gonna need to convince a supermajority of us to support changing the Constitution to achieve that.
 
Ethel2 said:
The judicial branch has the sole power of determining if a law or an action is permissible according to the constitution.
Click to expand...

That can change. The judiciary has been a creature of the Democrats for decades.

Why Public Trust in the Judiciary Matters — And What Judges Can Do About It​

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/losing-faith-why-public-trust-in-the-judiciary-matters/
"In June, Gallup released its annual survey on public confidence in the United States Supreme Court. The Court’s rating hit a historic low, with just 25 percent of Americans reporting “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence in the Court, down from 36 percent in 2021. Data show that the Court is not the only institution in which the American people are losing confidence. Faith in institutions across the board — from organized religion and public schools to news media and big business — sank in 2022. And the Court remains the most trusted of the three branches of government. But this year marked the largest one-year drop in the Court’s rating since the poll began in 1973 and the third decrease in a row. Of note: The poll was conducted before the Court issued its major rulings for the 2022 term."
 
Irrelevant. The constitution can be changed if the public doesn't like it. Its called "amending" the constitution. Meanwhile it remains in force as the supreme law of the land.
I'll ask you the question I asked another poster here who refused to answer it (so I answered it for him): if the court decided that a given law or action is not consistent with the constitution (ie its illegal) then is it OK for any president (or anyone else) to move forward anyway because "thats what the public voted for" or not.
Yes or no.
 
So it's all black and white to you?
You want all appointed federal judges to be able to stop the president from exercising his authority? Regardless of the logic behind their reasoning?

Yes, this is the route the Trump Administration must take: "If the Administration thinks the Judge has ruled wrongly, they can appeal - all the way to SCOTUS if they like."
 
The dude got away with trying to steal an election. His respect for the law is nil.
 

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Yes, as long as the President has perseverance and support of the people. America knows how to do revolution, we've done it before.


The tree of liberty​

The tree of liberty... (Quotation)

Read an excerpt from Jefferson's letter containing the quote "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots..."
www.monticello.org

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
 


Ooooooooor, now stick with me here, he could follow the law.
 
MAGATS are all traitors.
There are lawless countries run by dictators just for you.
I find your posts here disgusting.
 
j brown's body said:
Ooooooooor, now stick with me here, he could follow the law.
Click to expand...

He is following the law,,,as he sees it, and Trump is still popular You might want to pray that a Bastelle Day doesn't come in our lifetime

Americans’ trust in nation’s court system hits record low, survey finds (based on a December Gallop Poll.)​

Americans' trust in nation's court system hits record low, survey finds

At a time of heightened political division, Americans’ confidence in their country’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record low of 35% this year.
apnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — At a time of heightened political division, Americans’ confidence in their country’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record low of 35% this year, according to a new Gallup poll.

The United States saw a sharp drop of 24 percentage points over the last four years, setting the country apart from other wealthy nations where most people on average still express trust in their systems.

The results come after a tumultuous period that included the overturning of the nationwide right to abortion, the indictment of former President Donald Trump and the subsequent withdrawal of federal charges, and his attacks on the integrity of the judicial system.

The drop wasn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum. Confidence dropped among people who disapproved of the country’s leadership during Joe Biden’s presidency and among those who approved, according to Gallup. The respondents weren’t asked about their party affiliations.
 
The courts decide the law in this country. It’s how it works.
I hear North Korea is wonderful this time of year and their dictator is absolutely top notch!
Have you considered that might be more acceptable for you?
 
Speaking of black and white. If you had acknowledged that your Ballotpedia link lists several categories of federal courts distributed throughout the country, numbering in the hundreds, many of which have case logs in the hundreds, and some in the thousands. So, of course, these courts rotate several judges, not just one or two. So the fact that the number of federal judges nationwide is 1770 shouldn't come as any great shock. And only a very select few are ruling on issues of great national importance that the Trump Administration has forcibly foisted upon the country via dubious executive orders, and their lawfulness and constitutionality. The job of a federal judge is to interpret whether an action is lawful and in compliance with the Constitution. So "logic" would dictate that if a judge finds that an executive order doesn't meet either of those bars, he or she is compelled to rule against it. Why would they not? The courts aren't creating this adversity. The Trump Administration is with its overly aggressive tactics.
 
Ethel2 said:
The courts decide the law in this country. It’s how it works.
I hear North Korea is wonderful this time of year and their dictator is absolutely top notch!
Have you considered that might be more acceptable for you?
Click to expand...

OK, you keep depending on that.
 

Yes. I want the Judges ruling on cases covered by their courts. I want the International Trade Court ruling on cases with International Trade Law as one example.

That is literally their jobs. That is quite literally what we pay them to do. They went to School to be lawyers. They got to practice law after passing their BAR Exam. They were recognized and appointed as Judges and confirmed by the Senate.
 
We agree to disagree.
An appointed federal court judge should not have the total authority to thwart the chief executive of the United States unless upheld by a higher level court.
More to come on this from the Supreme Court.
 

You wrote:
"So "logic" would dictate that if a judge finds that an executive order doesn't meet either of those bars, he or she is compelled to rule against it. Why would they not? The courts aren't creating this adversity. The Trump Administration is with its overly aggressive tactics."

Of course you are assuming that particular judge is infallible and should have the authority to stop the president in every single case because his/her interpretation of the Constitution is absolutely correct, right?
That's what the appeal process is for, right?
 

IMHO, Trump’s ‘emergency’ for the most part is that he simply wants more “external revenue” and to try to undo ‘decades of’ offshoring. In fact, he has stated that tariffs on socks and T-shirts aren’t necessary, desired or in any way related to an ‘emergency’, yet tariffs are being placed on them using this ‘emergency’ power.
 
jaypatriot said:
We agree to disagree.
An appointed federal court judge should not have the total authority to thwart the chief executive of the United States unless upheld by a higher level court.
More to come on this from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

True enough. The Supreme Court is considering this. And if they follow that advice, it will literally be the stupidest decision they’ve made since Dred Scott.
 
Your question is a fallacy so I can't vote.
 
jaypatriot said:
I do not believe every one of those 2000 or so federal judges have the authority to override every decision Trump makes.
Click to expand...
Because you failed 6th grade civics.
jaypatriot said:
There is legislation in the works to prevent that from happening in the future.
Click to expand...
Legislation doesn’t override the constitution
 
You do know that most of the judges bitch slapping Trump are Republican appointed judges, with several being Trump appointed judges right?
 
Please, I am begging you, TRY an armed revolution. I would ****ing love for you guys to do this. So the local PD can absolutely decimate this stupidity.
 
Ganondagan said:
He is following the law,,,as he sees it,
Click to expand...
He doesn’t get to see it. He is indirect violation of the constitution. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him in court by JUDGES HE APPOINTED, as well as other Republican appointed judges. Why do you support such an anti American piece of shit traitor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…