Trump’s national security actions ‘will not be questioned’

[tres borrachos]

We may not have the same definition of "good."

Many people love Obama and hate trump

The Constitution is the same with both men but the liberal reaction to them is not the same

The third branch of overnment as written in the Constitution does not work well when it is infested with inferior judges who are just partisan democrats in black robes

And many people love Trump and hate Obama. Obama won the peoples' vote and was entitled to name a judge to that court. Same as Jimmy Carter. Same as George W. Bush. That's what the Constitution dictates. It's their right. And I won't denigrate the judges by calling them "inferior" or "so-called". I don't engage in partisan hackery and childish personal attacks.

 

[Mac77]

And many people love Trump and hate Obama. Obama won the peoples' vote and was entitled to name a judge to that court. Same as Jimmy Carter. Same as George W. Bush. That's what the Constitution dictates. It's their right. And I won't denigrate the judges by calling them "inferior" or "so-called".

I don't engage in partisan hackery and childish personal attacks.

Good for you

You respect the unelected lib judges and I don't

 

[tres borrachos]

Good for you

You respect the unelected lib judges and I don't

Because you're practicing partisan hackery. I don't. But I do have to give you points for being honest about your partisan disrespect for the Constitution. Most of your fellow partisans pretend they aren't engaging in hackery.

 

[TheGoverness]

Because you're practicing partisan hackery. I don't. But I do have to give you points for being honest about your partisan disrespect for the Constitution. Most of your fellow partisans pretend they aren't engaging in hackery.

He only disrespects it because the outcome was something he didn't like. Therefore they are tyrants.

I personally don't agree with a lot of the rulings that the courts come to. But I don't think in my head, "They're all just activist judges and tyrants!" or anything like that. I just disagree.

 

[Mac77]

Because you're practicing partisan hackery. I don't. But I do have to give you points for being honest about your partisan disrespect for the Constitution. Most of your fellow partisans pretend they aren't engaging in hackery.

It's respectful of the constitution for me to practice partisanship

But its not acceptable or respectful when unelected lib judges do it

 

[Mac77]

He only disrespects it because the outcome was something he didn't like. Therefore they are tyrants.

I personally don't agree with a lot of the rulings that the courts come to. But I don't think in my head, "They're all just activist judges and tyrants!" or anything like that. I just disagree.

If you disagree with many or most of the lhigh court decisions there is either something wrong with the unelected judges or something wrong with you

 

[tres borrachos]

It's respectful of the constitution for me to practice partisanship

But its not acceptable or respectful when unelected lib judges do it

Yes, you're engaging in partisanship. I get that. You don't need to keep repeating it. I'm sure everyone who has been reading gets that too. Some of us care more about the Constitution than engaging in partisanship.

 

[TheGoverness]

If you disagree with many or most of the lhigh court decisions there is either something wrong with the unelected judges or something wrong with you

There's also many rulings that I agree with.

 

[tres borrachos]

He only disrespects it because the outcome was something he didn't like. Therefore they are tyrants.

I personally don't agree with a lot of the rulings that the courts come to. But I don't think in my head, "They're all just activist judges and tyrants!" or anything like that. I just disagree.

I can't stand many of the judicial rulings in my lifetime and before. But that's the way our Constitution works. I'd be embarrassed to say I don't respect the Constitution because I only want non-liberals on the court. I can't stand the liberals on SCOTUS but the President who appointed them had that right.

 

[Mac77]

Yes, you're engaging in partisanship. I get that.

You don't need to keep repeating it.

I'm sure everyone who has been reading gets that too. Some of us care more about the Constitution than engaging in partisanship.

You keep repeating Jed phrase "partisan hackery" about me

In fact two or three times for each time that I respectfully answer the insult

Go back and check them record if you think I'm wrong

 

[tres borrachos]

You keep repeating Jed phrase "partisan hackery" about me

In fact two or three time for each time that I respectfully answer the insult

Go back and check them record if you think I'm wrong

When you say you don't respect the judges because they're liberal, that's partisan hackery.

I don't engage in it. You do. I respect the Constitution. You only do when it suits your purposes.

You should probably take a few minutes to read your own posts if you don't understand what partisan hackery is.

 

[Mac77]

I can't stand many of the judicial rulings in my lifetime and before. But that's the way our Constitution works. I'd be embarrassed to say I don't respect the Constitution because I only want non-liberals on the court. I can't stand the liberals on SCOTUS but the President who appointed them had that right.

So for you it doesn't matter who wins or loses or what bad decision are etched in stone but only how we play the game that counts?

Ok

 

[tres borrachos]

So for you it doesn't matter who wins or loses or what bad decision are etched in stone but only how we play the game that counts?

Ok

Yes. I respect the Constitution. This isn't complicated.

Are we done now? I'm hoping to engage people who are posting as people wanting to discuss an issue, not stomp their feet and scream about libruls.

 

[Mac77]

When you say you don't respect the judges because they're liberal, that's partisan hackery.

I don't engage in it. You do. I respect the Constitution. You only do when it suits your purposes.

You should probably take a few minutes to read your own posts if you don't understand what partisan hackery is.

If I didn't respect the Constitution I would not obey the court decisions

But I do obey them

Your want blind mindless sleepwalkers not respect

 

[tres borrachos]

If I didn't respect the Constitution I would not obey the court decisions

But I do obey them

Your want blind mindless sleepwalkers not respect

You get the last word, because your posts make my eyes bleed. I'm sure someone else wants to play the partisan hackery game. That isn't me.

 

[Mac77]

Yes. I respect the Constitution. This isn't complicated.

Are we done now? I'm hoping to engage people who are posting as people wanting to discuss an issue, not stomp their feet and scream about libruls.

Sure

In you mind anything trump does can be doubted or second guessed but the liberal judges are a law and a truth unto themselves

 

[Mac77]

You get the last word, because your posts make my eyes bleed. I'm sure someone else wants to play the partisan hackery game. That isn't me.

I get it

Any conservative who disagrees with you is a partisan hack

Ok, I plead guilty

 

[j-mac]

That is a whole lot of drama over a failed appeal of a TRO that was pretty clearly going to fail.

Well, I can try...:shrug: lol....But seriously, in the end I don't think it will ultimately fail...Either he will re write it, and all will be good, or this thing will make it to the SC, where the lower courts will be rebuked....But, by then we will be down the road on the outrage train....

 

[Tangmo]

Yes. I respect the Constitution. This isn't complicated.

Are we done now? I'm hoping to engage people who are posting as people wanting to discuss an issue, not stomp their feet and scream about libruls.

Indeed and I'd add that the late Justice Scalia was the most activist judge since the Great Dissenter Oliver Wendel Holmes. Justice Clarence Thomas keeps writing political treatises about natural law rather than writing legal opinions.

I'd offer this which is the latest rightwingnut rage against the judiciary that has halted Trump's immigration EO against Muslims and against the libruls in the courts...


Deep State Rebelling Against Donald Trump’s Cleaning Up Of The Judiciary


Donald Trump has come out in the open, lambasting this nation’s thoroughly corrupted judiciary, railing against those corrupted and beholden judges, who have now decided to take up their legal arms against him, to both destroy and undermine his vision and presidency, and these judges are retaliating and lashing out with the vim and vinegar of hellfire and scorn.

President Donald Trump has proven his love for the U.S. Constitution when he hoisted and submitted Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a heroic and herculean effort to save the American Republic, and to rescue it from the evil Satanic cabal that has subverted and undermined its courts all throughout America, from the civil, to the criminal, to the family, from the federal bench all the way down to the state and local.

Deep State Rebelling Against Donald Trump?s Cleaning Up Of The Judiciary



This one from the lunar right is even better, in a manner of speaking...


Deep State Shows They Control National Security With Michael Flynn Resignation

The Deep State does not ever want peace with Russia, or a respite in their interventionist wars overseas. They have thus far lobbed “softballs” at President Donald Trump, such as with their control over the Mainstream Media’s relentless attacks on Donald Trump, his character, his nominee choices, his vision, his America-first policies, and other decisions that he has made.

The Deep State has also used their thoroughly corrupted Judiciary at their disposal to thwart and sabotage Donald Trump’s executive orders, with their corrupted judges stockpiled in the federal, state and local courts for literally the past at least 28 years all the way from President George Herbert Walker Bush starting in 1988, to Bill Clinton, to George W Bush, and then through Obama all the way until 2016.

Deep State Shows They Control National Security With Michael Flynn Resignation


Howling at the moon they are.

 

[matchlight]

Yes, you're engaging in partisanship. I get that. You don't need to keep repeating it. I'm sure everyone who has been reading gets that too. Some of us care more about the Constitution than engaging in partisanship.

Anyone who really cares about the Constitution should support a President's right to defend it by ignoring flagrantly unconstitutional rulings by federal courts. Would you have a President meekly ignore a court's ruling, for example, that in effect removed his power to pardon, or his power to serve as commander-in-chief? No President could allow an outrage to the Constitution like that to stand. Nowhere does the Constitution give any federal court--including the Supreme Court--the final say on what the Constitution means, in all cases. Several Presidents, including Lincoln, have asserted their power to ignore Supreme Court decisions they believe are clearly unconstitutional. That is what Lincoln did with Dred Scott v. Sandford.

 

[upsideguy]

Good job mischaracterizing everything.

Trump's considerably imperfect ways are vastly more encouraging than the utter non-action and nonsense we've had from Washington for decades.

You can adjust and fix action along the way. But you can not fix anything if you refuse to do anything.

No question that authoritarian dictators can get things done quickly. However, we Americans do not believe in just things, opting instead for slow, steady, careful and predictable.

 

[upsideguy]

Bro, I have cited the law for you repeatedly, and gone through the ruling for you to demonstrate my point.

At this point, you need to actually cite and reference something. "Well listen to the hearing instead" isn't a counter-argument, it's an attempt to ignore what has been provided.


A) the law gives the President the right to make these decisions
B) it doesn't give the courts the right to make these decisions
C) yet that is what the court tried to do.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

The wide receiver carries the ball and scores touchdowns. The referee does not catch the ball nor score a touchdown. The referee merely tells us when the wide receiver stepped out of bounds or interfered with defender. The court merely said that Trump stepped out of bounds when doing his job. That is the court's job.

 

[fmw]

Do you support the powers of the president not being susceptible to media, judicial or legislative oversight?

(Yes, I know "susceptible" isn't the accurate word but the right one is being blocked from my brain atm).

Yes I do support separation of powers. The 9th circuit isn't doing oversight. It is getting involved in government administration. It is reading things into the order that are not there. It is basically making things up. It isn't oversight.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes I do support separation of powers. The 9th circuit isn't doing oversight. It is getting involved in government administration. It is reading things into the order that are not there. It is basically making things up. It isn't oversight.

Getting involved is how the judiciary is able to conduct oversight, unless you're implying that the 9th circuit should have reviewed the executive order through transcendental meditation.

 

[SMTA]

Getting involved is how the judiciary is able to conduct oversight, unless you're implying that the 9th circuit should have reviewed the executive order through transcendental meditation.

No kidding.

Oversight requires Investigation by gathering evidence from both sides and rendering judgement.