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

[jaypatriot]

Taxes are need to run the government. All companies are partially funded by debt. So are most households. They still need income. So do governments.

You're right. Lower taxes can lead to greater investment and therefore greater taxes from corporations who make investments and subsequently more profits.
HIgher taxes restrains economic growth.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Ok I’m with you so far.

This has been ruled unconstitutional. Any firearm in common use is protected by the 2nd amendment. States can ban types of firearms.

Sort of. States can’t ban bump stocks, fore grips, etc.

Sort of. Only for concealed carry in public.

Correct. Often times, those states run afoul of the constitution and the courts just strike them down.

Correct.

I'm afraid your 'fact check' is incorrect. I live in a state that has had a ban on assault weapons for a decade or more. that has withstood every legal challenge to it and, in fact, even expanded it last year to include more types of weapons. Many of these weapons are specifically named by brand, model name, and number. States can ban certain features, such as bump stocks, foregrips, etc. The federal ban on bump stocks was lifted. But the individual states can still regulate their sale or use.

Supreme Court denies challenges to bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines

The court's 6-3 conservative majority has expanded gun rights but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up new cases on the scope of the right to bear arms.

www.nbcnews.com

I wasn't looking to turn this into a debate over gun control. Which I know you get emotional about. I used it as an example of an issue where the states retain the legal and constitutional right to create and enact legislation that regulates certain things and activities. Immigration, however, is not one of them. The federal government has sole purview over immigration law.

 

[rahl]

I'm afraid your 'fact check' is incorrect. I live in a state that has had a ban on assault weapons for a decade or more. that has withstood every legal challenge to it and, in fact, even expanded it last year to include more types of weapons. Many of these weapons are specifically named by brand, model name, and number. States can ban certain features, such as bump stocks, foregrips, etc. The federal ban on bump stocks was lifted. But the individual states can still regulate their sale or use.

Supreme Court denies challenges to bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines

The court's 6-3 conservative majority has expanded gun rights but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up new cases on the scope of the right to bear arms.

www.nbcnews.com

I wasn't looking to turn this into a debate over gun control. Which I know you get emotional about. I used it as an example of an issue where the states retain the legal and constitutional right to create and enact legislation that regulates certain things and activities. Immigration, however, is not one of them. The federal government has sole purview over immigration law.

The supreme court has ruled such bans unconstitutional. See Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. A couple states are openly defying the court, but those cases are working their way to them as we speak.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The supreme court has ruled such bans unconstitutional. See Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. A couple states are openly defying the court, but those cases are working their way to them as we speak.

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling. Did you not read the link about the Court declining to hear challenges to Maryland and Rhode Island's assault weapon ban, allowing them to stand? While the court has expanded gun rights in recent years, it has also shown a reluctance to take up new cases on the scope of the Second Amendment. And that is all I will have to say about it since it has no direct relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Any further discussion must occur in another thread dedicated to that subject.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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?

Of course, you are assuming that a particular President is infallible and should be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants, no matter how contrary it is to statutory and Constitutional law, simply because he won an election by a margin of less than 2% of the popular vote. That is nowhere remotely close to being a mandate for anything, much less for violating the law and people's constitutional rights.

 

[Mika-El]

Let me put it this way: When a district court in Texas declares a ban on 11+ round magazines unconstitutional, does California instantly stop enforcing it's own magazine ban?

Thanks for a specific example. Please I am a Canadian retired law professor. I make no claims to be a US constitutional expert or expert in California or Texas laws and would defer to those lawyers.

Noddle I also openly tell yoou my bias which is because I am Canadian I agree with gun regulations and laws. I do not hide my biases on this forum and so I may argue strongly against pro gun people but they know I concede I am not against any gun being owned but believe in safety and training regulations and yes the banning but of only certain weapons not all and my comments are mostly in consideration of inner cities and heavily populated areas NOT rural areas where guns are a necessity to hunt to eat and protect against dangerous animals.

Ok that said:

1-the US consitution has two levels of laws for guns, one is state, the other federal-and they can overlap or contradict-in Canada all gun laws are part of federal criminal law-our provinces do not legislate criminal law and gun laws although each province regulates hunting laws which can impact on permits;

2-because of that dual nature it is possible in your scenario, states have different laws and regulations as to what kind of gun can be owned, what preconditions are required to buy, own, use and store a gun;

3-I would need to see why a law was struck out as unconstitutional in say one state-to know if a law in another state does the exact same thing to first determine if they are the same-then I would need to know the grounds of being unconstitutional-often people mistake gun laws in two states as being the same so when one is found unconstitutional its automatically assumed unconstitutional in the other state-but the laws are not actually the same so the lack of constitutionality may not be the same in both states;

4-as a general rule if a federal court, determines a federal law unconstitutional and the gun law is a federal one, then it is unconstitutional across the entire nation-but if the ruling is on a state specific law-whether its unconstitutional in another state will depend on if the other state's law is identical-if its identical the other state would still need to have some challenge its lack of constitutionality first and then in court the Judge could rely on rulings of unconstutionality in other states with the exact same wording to see if they can be applied.

In summary I am no gun expert in the US but I can tell you from my limited knowledge pro gun regulation states and anti gunregulation states can range widely in what is practiced in terms of what gun can be owned, whether you can carry it concealed or out in the open, etc.

So your question needs even more specificity to understand was it a state or federal law called unconstitutional and if it was a state law whether the two states have the identical wording (which is rarely the case). As well even with identical wording in state laws, its still possible there could be a finding of unconstitutionality in one state but not the other because of what enforcement area or procedure was being challenged. Enforcement procedures (due process) and preconditions for owning a gun can differ in state laws but sound the same or almost the same and here is where you can get a possible lack of comnstitutionality in one state but not the other.

I can tell you the widest divergence in state gun laws is in the TYPE of weapon that may be or is banned and in preconditions of ownership or in how information is stored of gun owners.

 

[Mika-El]

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling. Did you not read the link about the Court declining to hear challenges to Maryland and Rhode Island's assault weapon ban, allowing them to stand? While the court has expanded gun rights in recent years, it has also shown a reluctance to take up new cases on the scope of the Second Amendment. And that is all I will have to say about it since it has no direct relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Any further discussion must occur in another thread dedicated to that subject.

I can only back you up. Its there on public domain to prove what you said.

 

[Mika-El]

Wow where does one start to even attempt to answer AZR.

There is nothing in the Constitution empowering district court judges to second guess the POTUS. F

Of course there is and again when I see comments like the above I immediately think you are Russian spam for not knowing this. In the US when the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can and do sue in federal court to stop it. If what you said is true there would be no need for a juridiciary system and Presidents could operate in a vacuum. The US was created in 1776 with a Consttitution to specifically assure a President can NOT unilaterally impose a law (edict ) like King Heorge did and so built in checks and balances. Anything a President states in an Executive Order has NO legal meaning. It is fiction until a law enforcing its request is passed first by both elected chambers. Even any law is also subject to judicial review.

God God man read Article 3 and for that matter the US constitution before you come on this forum and repeat Russian spam that repeats the above over and over on many sites. Thank you.

or example, the AEA charges the President with determining if an invasion is taking place to use the powers in the act. President Trump issued a finding that the flood of illegal aliens encouraged by the Biden regime is an invasion. Naturally activist judges determined they usurp the power of the President in furtherance of Democrat lawsuits designed to nullify the election.

The Presidential finding of an invasion isn't a Presidential decree. It's an exercise of his authority under the AEA. As such the courts have no Constitutional authority to second guess guess. But that doesn't stop Democrats and their pet judges from doing exactly that.

The Supreme Court of the US stated you and Trump were wrong precisely because the law the President tried to used to justify not following due process when enforcing US immigration deportatoion laws directly violated the constitution;s guarantee that anyone on US soil including illegals were and are entitled to the very due process Trump felt he could ignore by Executive order. Please again if you are going to make such unfounded comments try read up on the subject matter.

That's right it is difficult for courts to enforce their overreaching decrees second guessing the President acting within his legal authority.

Again you missed the issue. Courts do not overreach. They might in specific cases award a type of remedy they had no power to. Very rarely though has any court in the US ruled on a subject matter they were not allowed to. In the case of Trump's Presidential Executive Orders some have been allowed on the grounds the court could not award an injunction as a remedy but could offer some other kind of remedy. For the most part one after one all Presidential decrees have been found to overreach the powers afforded any President in the constitution and therefore struck down and no its not difficult not are courts reluctant to reign any President in, Trump in all the history of the US, is the only President to try use Executive Orders unilaterally without first passing a law in congress. He does this precisely because he knows his edicts or orders could not pass congress even with his own GOP.

cont.

 

[Mika-El]

I continhe my responses to AZ....

That's why the Constitution envisions these matters being handled by Congress.

Well then why do you try pretend that the President when he issues Executive Orders has done them under laws handled by Congress? How many times must the US Supreme Court tell you the existing law he tries to use to justify his executive order does not support it or allow it? How many more decisions do you need?

You said:

They have the authority to write new, repeal, or modify laws. They can override the President's veto. They can cut off spending. Ultimately they can impeach the President, remove them from office and bar them from seeking reelection.

Yes and for those reasons Trump can not avoid them by trying to pass Executive Orders without first passing a law to allow what he is ordering.

You said:

Orange Man Bad demagoguery edited for length.

You clearly refuse to read or consider anything that does not conform to your preconceived views which explains why the last two comments above contradict all your arguments.

You said:

Judge shopping in this context means choosing to have a case heard before a sympathetic judge.

Do you even read what you write? The Supreme Court of the US that has ruled against Trump have been majority hand picked by Trump. In lower courts that have over ruled by Trump, those have all been with GOP picked or elected Judges.

Despite the supposedly random assignment of judges to cases Democrats have remarkable luck in getting their barrage of Trump political attack cases assigned to Trump hating judges like Chutkan and Boasberg.

The above is absolutely false. You deflect from all the cases where pro Trump Judges have ruled against him and try claim without any substance that the decisions against him were done for political reasons only. If that is the case Trump could have appealed them up to the Supreme Court of the US on the grounds of political bias. They were not precisely because they were not politically bias and the laws he broke were proven by the actions he did (facts) not application of law (ignoring what a law said). You clearly have no idea how laws are interpreted in the US and think you are in Putin Russia.

Federal judges, district, appeals and SCOTUS are all appointed.

So find out who appoined the Judges ruling against Trump before you try make the idiotic argument its a Joe Biden conspiracy against Trump.

cont.

 

[Mika-El]

Finally:

President Biden actively undermined immigration law with executive decrees creating an open border crisis.

Biden inherited Trump's regime which completely renders your argument stupid. At tbe beginning of Trump;s first reign the immigration problem was always there and that started after WW2 when the US rebuilt its economy by taking advantage of illegal immigrants who could come to the US and be paid under the table far under minimum wage and with no benefits or protection. This was a phenomena all Presidents ignored and in fact illegals who showed they could pay taxes for 5 years while they were illegal would be given citizenship.

The US then decided it could send its manufacturing overseas as transportation and internet developed where there would be no environmental laws and because of difference in currency value the labour was paidevenc heaper than American illegals who needed more money to survive in the US.

Magas like to pretend Biden created this phenomena. Trump during his first term lied. He said he would build a wall blaiming Obama for illegal immigrants. He never did. He put up a lot of talk but never did for two reasons. His business elite supporters told him they needed the illegals. Secondly Covid 19 then shut down all business and so the flow of immigrants stopped during the Covid era. Then Biden got elected as the Covid era ended and all the illegals amassed in Mexico waiting to get back in suddenly swarmed in as Covid 19 restrictions were lifted.

So the issue is far more complex then Biden did it. In fact Biden wanted to pass a GOP drafted law to deal with the issue but Trump during the election against Biden ordered GOP senators whose bill Biden agreed to follow were told to blow it up to create an election issue for Donald. That is public domain.

So while you engage in the usual Trump script understand this-illegals have stopped working your farms and produce has rotted on the ground and now food shortages in vegetables and fruit, meat, eggs havesky rocketed and contrary to Trump's lies have not gone down. What happened is there was a temporary rush of inventory in contemplation of the US shortages and before overseas food coming in is tariffed.

Speaker Johnson: 64 Biden policies created border chaos

(The Center Square) – U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has identified 64 Biden administration polices he argues created the border crisis.

www.thecentersquare.com

Yet no Democrats rushed to hand picked district courts to file suits seeking nationwide injunctive relief.

Again you do not understand the laws.In many cases injunctions are NOT the remedy that is requested. As well the legal challenges are not just from Democrats but individual businesses and GOP states.

 

[Athanasius68]

Finally:



Biden inherited Trump's regime which completely renders your argument stupid. At tbe beginning of Trump;s first reign the immigration problem was always there and that started after WW2 when the US rebuilt its economy by taking advantage of illegal immigrants who could come to the US and be paid under the table far under minimum wage and with no benefits or protection. This was a phenomena all Presidents ignored and in fact illegals who showed they could pay taxes for 5 years while they were illegal would be given citizenship.

The US then decided it could send its manufacturing overseas as transportation and internet developed where there would be no environmental laws and because of difference in currency value the labour was paidevenc heaper than American illegals who needed more money to survive in the US.

Magas like to pretend Biden created this phenomena. Trump during his first term lied. He said he would build a wall blaiming Obama for illegal immigrants. He never did. He put up a lot of talk but never did for two reasons. His business elite supporters told him they needed the illegals. Secondly Covid 19 then shut down all business and so the flow of immigrants stopped during the Covid era. Then Biden got elected as the Covid era ended and all the illegals amassed in Mexico waiting to get back in suddenly swarmed in as Covid 19 restrictions were lifted.

So the issue is far more complex then Biden did it. In fact Biden wanted to pass a GOP drafted law to deal with the issue but Trump during the election against Biden ordered GOP senators whose bill Biden agreed to follow were told to blow it up to create an election issue for Donald. That is public domain.

So while you engage in the usual Trump script understand this-illegals have stopped working your farms and produce has rotted on the ground and now food shortages in vegetables and fruit, meat, eggs havesky rocketed and contrary to Trump's lies have not gone down. What happened is there was a temporary rush of inventory in contemplation of the US shortages and before overseas food coming in is tariffed.




Again you do not understand the laws.In many cases injunctions are NOT the remedy that is requested. As well the legal challenges are not just from Democrats but individual businesses and GOP states.

Poppycock. Illegal immigration at the border has basically ended.
No new laws were signed. It was simply that the Trump Admin chose to enforce the law, whereas the Biden Admin chose not to enforce the law.

 

[rahl]

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling.

I just listed the 4 rulings which preclude any state from banning any firearm in common use.

Did you not read the link about the Court declining to hear challenges to Maryland and Rhode Island's assault weapon ban, allowing them to stand?

They don’t decline to rule on the case. They declined to rule until it made its way through the circuit courts.

While the court has expanded gun rights in recent years, it has also shown a reluctance to take up new cases on the scope of the Second Amendment.

Other than all the cases the took up and struck down unconstitutional restrictions. Namely the 4 cases I cited just in the last 15 years lol.

And that is all I will have to say about it since it has no direct relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Any further discussion must occur in another thread dedicated to that subject.

 

[Mika-El]

Poppycock. Illegal immigration at the border has basically ended.
No new laws were signed. It was simply that the Trump Admin chose to enforce the law, whereas the Biden Admin chose not to enforce the law.

Speaking about poppy **** in regards to illegals with Biden:

Breaking Down the Immigration Figures - FactCheck.org

Encounters on the southern border of those trying to enter the U.S. without authorization have gone up significantly under President Joe Biden. Government statistics show that in the initial processing of millions of encounters, 2.5 million people have been released into the U.S. and 2.8 million...

www.factcheck.org

Here is one of many complex reasons why immigration flows changed under Biden:

What's behind the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border?

Migrants have always come to the U.S., but the immigration system now seems strained nationwide more than ever. The U.S. has had immigration surges before so what's different now, and why?

www.pbs.org

Here is an example of the bullshit now involved in misrepresenting the decrease in illegal immigration after Trump was elected:

Fact-checking the Trump White House's claims about illegal immigration dropping sharply

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border has dropped since Trump entered the White House. But the White House’s data use is misleading.

www.pbs.org

Immigration has dropped under Trump. Here’s what to know

One month since President Donald Trump was sworn in as president, the White House is touting the administrations’ succes

www.politifact.com

Mexican National Guard being placed at their border with the US at 18 sites on Feb.4, 2025 preventing illegal crossings into the US has most certainly has cut the flow some argue as high as 90% and pro Trump supporters say his tariffs and tariff threats against Mexico is the reason they did this.

There is also no doubt Trump's deportation and other policies are discouraging all migration to the US legal and illegal.

The Mexican fentanyl drug cartels were directly running many if not all the people smuggling.

There is far too much lying coming out of the Trump administration to know the true figures but yes it does appear change in current policies cracking down on drug cartels has the assistance of the current Mexican government trying to appease Trump in regards to tariffs. For sure.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Lets go nuts.

Hi Peter,

I thought we used to call that 'Doin' the right thing'?

But you forgot 1 thing though. There should be a tribunal to bring them to justice. Like the Nuremberg trials.


Joey

 

[SavannahMann]

I can only back you up. Its there on public domain to prove what you said.

Yep.

Supreme Court declines to hear gun-control challenges

After considering them at 15 consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two challenges to gun-control laws in Maryland and Rhode Island. In each case, three justices indicated […]

www.scotusblog.com

For our MAGA Fanboy types who won’t read anything that is left of Fox.

Supreme Court declines to hear challenges to state assault weapons bans | Fox News

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision not to review state bans on AR-15 rifles, citing Second Amendment concerns.

www.foxnews.com

 

[SavannahMann]

I just listed the 4 rulings which preclude any state from banning any firearm in common use.

They don’t decline to rule on the case. They declined to rule until it made its way through the circuit courts.

Other than all the cases the took up and struck down unconstitutional restrictions. Namely the 4 cases I cited just in the last 15 years lol.

The full Appeals Court ruled on the case. That means in the region covered by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals banning AR-15’s and high capacity magazines is perfectly legal.

Supreme Court declines to hear challenges to state assault weapons bans | Fox News

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision not to review state bans on AR-15 rifles, citing Second Amendment concerns.

www.foxnews.com

 

[bomberfox]

Vance has long needed to be stripped of his jobbed and deported back to Ohio.

Parts of Ohio are competing to become the worst region of America.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

You're right. Lower taxes can lead to greater investment and therefore greater taxes from corporations who make investments and subsequently more profits.
HIgher taxes restrains economic growth.

Hi Jay,

Did you go to the school of Donald Duck Economics? Look around you! All democratic countries that are rich, pay high taxes. Virtual all countries where taxes are low, are countries your Fuhrer refers to as shithole countries. And those are basically your choices. Really.


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

i support a 'dictatorship' but not in the way you Envision it.

it is more like a Benevolent Monarchy; it will all be inevitable anyway. what we have now is doomed to fail and really doesn't serve the interests of most people except the 1% who rule over us.

my only hope is a World Wide christian monarchy by my King and savior, the only one that can bring peace and prosperity to all. anything else has proven hopeless and failure prone.


blessings Jet, just think it over.

.

Hi Revelation,

That makes you even worse then Trump. He only has 50% of the population against him. But since only 31% of the global population is Christian, why would you want to force a dictatorship onto 69% of the population. 69% of the people, and these people really do not want want you suggest.

When they make a new constitution, they should ban all references to religion. Every single one of them. If you want to live like a Christian, do so in your own time. But leave the rest of the people out of it, ok? As it stands, education is already shitty in the US, Trump is rapidly making it worse by cutting funds and allowing states more control. And now, I guess, you want the kids to waste more time on learning the bible? Have you really lost the plot? How can this possibly be good for anyone, including the Christians that is of course.

But let me just to spell it out for you, what you suggest will immediately lead to War. Me for starters, I would probably become a member of some organisation that would burn down all your churches, much like the protestants (also Christians by the way. lol.) did in the 1500s. I mean seriously, any state that dictates me what to believe is not one I want to be part of. Never. Ever. It shoudn't even exist, it's that wrong and bad.


Joey

 

[jaypatriot]

Hi Jay,

Did you go to the school of Donald Duck Economics? Look around you! All democratic countries that are rich, pay high taxes. Virtual all countries where taxes are low, are countries your Fuhrer refers to as shithole countries. And those are basically your choices. Really.


Joey

Of course, as an anti-Trump Progressive you want high taxes to pay for more social programs. I want lower corporate taxes to fuel growth in capitalist organizations which translates into more tax revenues to grow GDP.
I want Trump to win and you want him to lose because you are still butt-hurt over Hillary's embarrassing loss last November.

 

[jaypatriot]

Oh, so you don't want checks and balances against Presidential power?
The Dems should remember that when they get back in power and just completely ignore any and all laws.

Ban guns.
Massive tax rises on the rich
Declare the Republicans a terrorist organisation.

Lets go nuts.

I sure hope none of those block-headed Dems leaders read your post and get ideas for if and when they win back the House.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Of course, as an anti-Trump Progressive you want high taxes to pay for more social programs. I want lower corporate taxes to fuel growth in capitalist organizations which translates into more tax revenues to grow GDP.
I want Trump to win and you want him to lose because you are still butt-hurt over Hillary's embarrassing loss last November.

Hi Jay,

Sorry, but you're missing the point. More taxes leads to more wealth. Look around you.

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I sure hope none of those block-headed Dems leaders read your post and get ideas for if and when they win back the House.

Hi Jay,

Why you worry about that? It's ok if one does it, but not ok if someone else does it? C'mon, you haven't slid down that far yet, have you?

Joey

 

[Mika-El]

You're right. Lower taxes can lead to greater investment and therefore greater taxes from corporations who make investments and subsequently more profits.
HIgher taxes restrains economic growth.

Again you make sweeping generalized statements and the generalizations are so wide as to render them pointless.

Lower taxes do not always lead to greater investment precisely because the money that did not go to taxes did not necessarily get reinvested in businesses that went on to hire people or generate spin off economic benefits.

As well higher taxes can when used in specific context fund programs that do indeed incite economic growth in the specific sector those tax funds are then rerouted to.

During Covid 19, higher taxes tried to offset huge increases in government spending to the business sector to keep businesses going and prevent economic shrinkage.

Trump has created a consumer tax (tariff) to increase taxes on certain Americans to fund lowering taxes for a minority of Americans. Interestingly those taxes through tariffs Trump claims will make America "rich".

For someone who claims higher taxes restrain economic growth you support Trump's tariffs (consumer tax).

Funny how that works hmmm.


You think the tariffs now on American goods are growing the US economy? Go on tell us all.

 

[Mika-El]

Yep.

Supreme Court declines to hear gun-control challenges

After considering them at 15 consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two challenges to gun-control laws in Maryland and Rhode Island. In each case, three justices indicated […]

www.scotusblog.com

For our MAGA Fanboy types who won’t read anything that is left of Fox.

Supreme Court declines to hear challenges to state assault weapons bans | Fox News

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision not to review state bans on AR-15 rifles, citing Second Amendment concerns.

www.foxnews.com

SavannahMann my God you read? Lol. Me no read me watch Fox.