testtest

my federal judge on Ingraham

Old_Me

Old_Me

SAINT
yes, this justice sided with the Anti 2A people a few years ago, regarding the magazine ban, saying something like, he thinks RI will be where the next mass shooting will be...like what, he's a psychic now too ..??

he's a dolt.

Laura Ingraham pointed him out directly on her show last night

from what i gather what was said by someone on her show, no judge can stop a president, in performing his presidential duties..????

i hope there is a way to de-thrown such dolt judges.

 
I keep paraphrasing J. Stalin. How many divisions dose this, or any other judge have?
Some of these "restraining-orders" have standing, (not much IMHO), some most certainly not. I.E. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer temporarily blocked the administration from giving access to anyone “other than civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties.” That would include the Sec. of Treasury o_O.
This is just Lawfare 2.0. I fear we are closer to violence than we were 6-8 months ago. God help the USA, though I don't know why he would bother. :( Our system was built with three separate powers with checks and balances. Stay in your own lane.
 
Old_Me said:
yes, this justice sided with the Anti 2A people a few years ago, regarding the magazine ban, saying something like, he thinks RI will be where the next mass shooting will be...like what, he's a psychic now too ..??

he's a dolt.

Laura Ingraham pointed him out directly on her show last night

from what i gather what was said by someone on her show, no judge can stop a president, in performing his presidential duties..????

i hope there is a way to de-thrown such dolt judges.

Click to expand...
Courts can stop the president when his actions violate the law or the Constitution. The courts, per Marbury v. Madison, are the ultimate authority on determining what the law means and what is and is not constitutional. The Executive is just that, executive. The president does not make or interpret law, he executes it. Congress makes the laws, can declare war, and makes the budget. The President puts those into effect. He can veto a law before it's passed but after that his powers are SUPPOSED to be limited to putting those laws into effect., though our bootlicker Congress seems to have forgotten that part, as well as their duties to the country and their ability to exercise independent thought and judgment.

Article 3 judges are appointed for life but can be impeached and removed. Only Congress can do that.

We're in some serious trouble if the President decides he can ignore the courts. Interpreting the law and enjoining the other two branches from unconstitutional and illegal actions IS the judiciary's lane. Our society and nation depend on the contract wherein we respect the law. That's dictator behavior and we need to ensure no President, ever, goes that way.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of supreme court rulings, states keep going their way which should be in contempt..... ...I think I'm right......and if so how do they get away with it. That's not any different than feds rolling into Denver and the city pd keeping them out. The mayor was just mouthy and didn't do it, but was hoping residents would that way he (iirc) isn't the 1 in trouble.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
Regardless of supreme court rulings, states keep going their way which should be in contempt..... ...I think I'm right......and if so how do they get away with it. That's not any different than feds rolling into Denver and the city pd keeping them out. The mayor was just mouthy and didn't do it, but was hoping residents would that way he (iirc) isn't the 1 in trouble.
Click to expand...
They aren't in contempt immediately, but they are directed to cease laws the courts find unconstitutional. Unfortunately the courts don't really have an enforcement mechanism to make sure their rulings and opinions are followed. Generally they don't have to, as most leaders understand the contract we've all chosen to live by wherein we respect and follow court orders. The federal courts can get the U.S. Marshals to compel compliance and state courts can use the various law enforcement agencies in the state in some situations, like taking someone into custody or seizing property. Issues of policy, though, can't really be compelled in that way.
 
benstt said:
Courts can stop the president when his actions violate the law or the Constitution. The courts, per Marbury v. Madison, are the ultimate authority on determining what the law means and what is and is not constitutional. The Executive is just that, executive. The president does not make or interpret law, he executes it. Congress makes the laws, can declare war, and makes the budget. The President puts those into effect. He can veto a law before it's passed but after that his powers are SUPPOSED to be limited to putting those laws into effect., though our bootlicker Congress seems to have forgotten that part, as well as their duties to the country and their ability to exercise independent thought and judgment.

Article 3 judges are appointed for life but can be impeached and removed. Only Congress can do that.

We're in some serious trouble if the President decides he can ignore the courts. Interpreting the law and enjoining the other two branches from unconstitutional and illegal actions IS the judiciary's lane. Our society and nation depend on the contract wherein we respect the law. That's dictator behavior and we need to ensure no President, ever, goes that way.
Click to expand...
I disagree - see link https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lawfare-20-new-york-judge-launches-coup

Name the times when presidents haven't ignored the courts. Courts are to rule on laws, not policy and not executive actions. This "unconstitutional" nonsense is a gambit they have played with all presidencies. the populace elects the folks who make up the congress, admin etc. It is not for judges to rule their authority overrides the governors, as it does not. Full stop.
 
trader said:
I disagree - see link https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lawfare-20-new-york-judge-launches-coup

Name the times when presidents haven't ignored the courts. Courts are to rule on laws, not policy and not executive actions. This "unconstitutional" nonsense is a gambit they have played with all presidencies. the populace elects the folks who make up the congress, admin etc. It is not for judges to rule their authority overrides the governors, as it does not. Full stop.
Click to expand...
Who is the author of that article, and what are his qualifications?

Three judges have just put a stop to the "birthright citizenship doesn't exist" policy because it is plainly and clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment. Executive actions don't get you around the law and presidents are not kings. How would you view it if, say, the governor of your state made it state policy that all handguns and all rifles more potent than a .22lr are banned and sent the state police around to kick open your door and seize your property. Or if the governor sent state agents around to all gun shops in the state to seize their sales records for everything from guns to gun cases and create a state database? Such actions would be taken by the governor that the people of the state elected, not the federal judge who'd be striking them down because they violated the 2nd and 4th Amendments. Would you still argue the judge had no authority to enjoin the governor's actions? How about if Congress passed a law requiring you to quarter and feed a platoon of soldiers in your house during peacetime, violating the 3rd Amendment? Would you still be against judges "ruling their authority overrides [Congress]"?
 
Some governors have already taken some actions similar to what you point out. As to the 14th amendment - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment designed for emancipated slaves to obtain citizenship. Where the disagreement on this lies is the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I'll leave that to lawyers to argue out. I've lived where governing authorities declared my rights, not only with respect to firearms, but other things, null and void. The Judges backed them up despite being absolutely unconstitutional. The national databases have been created and been running for some years now, miss that? Federal judges uphold bad laws and strike down good ones. Sometimes they do the opposite, depends on the judge themselves and their opinion, which was my whole point.
 
trader said:
Some governors have already taken some actions similar to what you point out. As to the 14th amendment - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment designed for emancipated slaves to obtain citizenship. Where the disagreement on this lies is the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I'll leave that to lawyers to argue out. I've lived where governing authorities declared my rights, not only with respect to firearms, but other things, null and void. The Judges backed them up despite being absolutely unconstitutional. The national databases have been created and been running for some years now, miss that? Federal judges uphold bad laws and strike down good ones. Sometimes they do the opposite, depends on the judge themselves and their opinion, which was my whole point.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer licensed in numerous state an federal courts, I would argue that anyone who can be arrested, as illegal immigrants can, are subject to the laws of the United States. The people who are not subject to those laws are the rare exceptions like foreign diplomats or others with immunity. Yes, it was passed and ratified with the intent to give citizenship to emancipated slaves, but the words on the page say what they say. The Amendment does not contain language limiting it to just slaves.

Your point seemed to be that judges don't have the authority to override executive actions. They very much do when the actions run afoul of the law. Case in point: Biden wanted to forgive a bunch off student loan debt. That doesn't even violate the constitution, but the courts shut him down because his policy overstepped the authority granted to him by Congress. I'd be very surprised if you or anyone else on here saw that decision as a "coup", and I'm absolutely certain it would have raised a loud and unified chorus of "Tyranny!" if he had just gone and done it anyway.
 
Biden DID forgive a bunch of student debt loans as you pointed out, notwithstanding the US Supreme courts rulings and guidance. The afoul of the law phrase you use it key isn't it? Which laws and whose intrepretation reigns - that is the matter up for discussion. My point stands - if you have a judge ruling the entire US executive branch can't do what the policies outlined have stated, then we are in some trouble as you point out earlier.
 
benstt said:
We're in some serious trouble if the President decides he can ignore the courts. Interpreting the law and enjoining the other two branches from unconstitutional and illegal actions IS the judiciary's lane. Our society and nation depend on the contract wherein we respect the law. That's dictator behavior and we need to ensure no President, ever, goes that way.
Click to expand...
what i bolded and underlined.....

in that case, aren't we in serious trouble, when the states leaders like US congressmen, US senators, and state lawmakers IGNORE the US Constitution, (that they swore an oath to defend and uphold the US Constitution) and sign into laws gun controls, magazine capacities, etc...etc..??

don't we as citizens of these states depend on said "contract"....????

aren't the local state leaders "dictators" in of themselves..???? by ignoring the US Constitution..??? and doing "as they please"...????
 
benstt said:
As a lawyer licensed in numerous state an federal courts, I would argue that anyone who can be arrested, as illegal immigrants can, are subject to the laws of the United States. The people who are not subject to those laws are the rare exceptions like foreign diplomats or others with immunity. Yes, it was passed and ratified with the intent to give citizenship to emancipated slaves, but the words on the page say what they say. The Amendment does not contain language limiting it to just slaves.

Your point seemed to be that judges don't have the authority to override executive actions. They very much do when the actions run afoul of the law. Case in point: Biden wanted to forgive a bunch off student loan debt. That doesn't even violate the constitution, but the courts shut him down because his policy overstepped the authority granted to him by Congress. I'd be very surprised if you or anyone else on here saw that decision as a "coup", and I'm absolutely certain it would have raised a loud and unified chorus of "Tyranny!" if he had just gone and done it anyway.
Click to expand...
Good thing it was shut down, to bad the open border wasn't for ignoring us security
 
Old_Me said:
yes, this justice sided with the Anti 2A people a few years ago, regarding the magazine ban, saying something like, he thinks RI will be where the next mass shooting will be...like what, he's a psychic now too ..??

he's a dolt.

Laura Ingraham pointed him out directly on her show last night

from what i gather what was said by someone on her show, no judge can stop a president, in performing his presidential duties..????

i hope there is a way to de-thrown such dolt judges.

Click to expand...
he and the AG were on fox earlier with a FLAWED press conference about a high capacity magazine and assault thing ban
his physics example was flawed
cannot compare two different weighted items and expect they behave the same
when each one has a different muzzle velocity and even the "deadly" 223 comes in different bullet weights
as do most 9mm and 45 "high cap magazine" pistols....

what a TOOOOOOOL
 
powerboatr said:
he and the AG were on fox earlier with a FLAWED press conference about a high capacity magazine and assault thing ban
his physics example was flawed
cannot compare two different weighted items and expect they behave the same
when each one has a different muzzle velocity and even the "deadly" 223 comes in different bullet weights
as do most 9mm and 45 "high cap magazine" pistols....

what a TOOOOOOOL
Click to expand...
yeah and the AG is "eyeing" a possible run for the goobeners job next election..the AG is as anti gun as anyone could ever imagine.

we are being held hostage by the dumbocrats......not enough republicans in office.....

yet "people want change"


ya can't get "change" when ya's vote the same way

the definition of insanity.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top