We better hope that the judiciary stands firm over the next four years, rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. They may end up being all that stands between the citizens and tyranny. Stand strong.

Sounds like Dems are like runaway wives with stack of credit cards

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We better hope that the judiciary stands firm over the next four years, rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. They may end up being all that stands between the citizens and tyranny. Stand strong.

Mike -

I'm a bit surprised that you're a fan of judicial activism. To cheer on courts that are taking Constitutional Executive powers away, is Anarchy, the exact opposite of Tyranny.

Foreign Aid, by its very definition has nothing to do with some federal judge. How would you have liked it if a federal court would have blocked Biden sending money to Ukraine? It's the same thing.

You may not like the action but the power resides in the Executive Branch, not the UNELECTED judiciary.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We better hope that the judiciary stands firm over the next four years, rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. They may end up being all that stands between the citizens and tyranny. Stand strong.

Mike -

I'm a bit surprised that you're a fan of judicial activism. To cheer on courts that are taking Constitutional Executive powers away, is Anarchy, the exact opposite of Tyranny.

Foreign Aid, by its very definition has nothing to do with some federal judge. How would you have liked it if a federal court would have blocked Biden sending money to Ukraine? It's the same thing.

You may not like the action but the power resides in the Executive Branch, not the UNELECTED judiciary.

Checks and balances Steve. Trump is doing his damn well best to undermine our Constitution, and here you are defending him(no surprise there). Not ALL of the power resides with executive branch, certainly not when it comes to the power of the purse.

quote:

Trump is doing his damn well best to undermine our Constitution,

Not

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We better hope that the judiciary stands firm over the next four years, rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. They may end up being all that stands between the citizens and tyranny. Stand strong.

Mike -

I'm a bit surprised that you're a fan of judicial activism. To cheer on courts that are taking Constitutional Executive powers away, is Anarchy, the exact opposite of Tyranny.

Foreign Aid, by its very definition has nothing to do with some federal judge. How would you have liked it if a federal court would have blocked Biden sending money to Ukraine? It's the same thing.

You may not like the action but the power resides in the Executive Branch, not the UNELECTED judiciary.

Checks and balances Steve. Trump is doing his damn well best to undermine our Constitution, and here you are defending him(no surprise there). Not ALL of the power resides with executive branch, certainly not when it comes to the power of the purse.

He has the Constitutional authority to start AND stop foreign aid. Far more power than an unelected judge somewhere.

Should a judge be able to tell Trump that he cannot make arrangements to retrieve foreign hostages? Build a border wall, Tell Biden he HAS to allow the border wall to continue? Hire and fire within the executive branch? Where does a Presidents power end and a federal judges begin.

What the left fails to understand here, these actions are doing nothing but giving Trump more power. His popularity and approval ratings went up, every time a court tried to intervene in his reelection.

The electorate will punish the left, even further in 2026.

And I know you're losing this argument because the insults are starting. Lets keep it about the issue, not each other.

To add; Trumps actions are really no different that when Biden got on the TV weekly to announce yet another billion in aid to Ukraine. Had a Trump appointed federal Judge stopped that, how would you react? you would likely clim judicial activism, and you would have been correct.

The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

Mike -

If the judiciary is proving, as they are, that they will block each and every action this President makes, are you ok with that?

The loony left (Hakeem Jefferies) already stated that they would use the courts as a tool to stop this President.

Where do checks and balances end and judicial anarchy begin? You can't just be ok with it because Orange Man bad.

And like I said, your democrat party will get slaughtered in 2026.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Trump is doing his damn well best to undermine our Constitution,

Not

Denial...no longer just a river in Egypt

This is interesting. The two views are that the President holds the power, the other that Congress decides and the President enforces.

Neither view says the Judiciary can stop the executive.

https://www.justice.gov/file/147551-0/dl?inline=

Pages 295-299 are interesting reading as well as it relates to a Presidents Executive power.

https://scholarship.law.duke.e...cle=2266&context=dlj

Plenty of precedent that the President’s actions are subject to judicial review.

I have cited a bunch of it in a previous thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

Mike -

If the judiciary is proving, as they are, that they will block each and every action this President makes, are you ok with that?

The loony left (Hakeem Jefferies) already stated that they would use the courts as a tool to stop this President.

Where do checks and balances end and judicial anarchy begin? You can't just be ok with it because Orange Man bad.

And like I said, your democrat party will get slaughtered in 2026.

Depending upon how the people get "slaughtered" by loss of jobs, high inflation, not being able to buy a home or get a mortgage will determine who gets slaughtered in 2026. The ones who voted for the Pubs in 2024 might not like taking it in the ass and decide it's time for a change. Right now the Pubs in Congress are nothing but a bunch of fraidy cat sheep. If Mitch had grown a pair like he seems to have now trump would either be basking in the sun somewhere or in jail.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

Mike -

If the judiciary is proving, as they are, that they will block each and every action this President makes, are you ok with that?

The loony left (Hakeem Jefferies) already stated that they would use the courts as a tool to stop this President.

Where do checks and balances end and judicial anarchy begin? You can't just be ok with it because Orange Man bad.

And like I said, your democrat party will get slaughtered in 2026.

You are proving you are trying to delegitimize the courts role established by the Constitution and centuries of precedent for political reasons.

The Court should be and is to be used to stop unconstitutional incursions of power.

Or just call Trump Your Grace.

However, President Trump convinced millions including you his election loss was a rigged result. So, why not do the same to the judicial branch of government.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

Mike -

If the judiciary is proving, as they are, that they will block each and every action this President makes, are you ok with that?

The loony left (Hakeem Jefferies) already stated that they would use the courts as a tool to stop this President.

Where do checks and balances end and judicial anarchy begin? You can't just be ok with it because Orange Man bad.

And like I said, your democrat party will get slaughtered in 2026.

You are proving you are trying to delegitimize the courts role established by the Constitution and centuries of precedent for political reasons.

The Court should be and is to be used to stop unconstitutional incursions of power.

Or just call Trump Your Grace.

and you're trying to delegitimize the powers of the Executive.

You're making an assumption that the foreign aid powers do not rest with the Executive Branch.

The SCOTUS will decide and I'll be ok with that decision.

I am following centuries of precedent.

The Executive is not isolated from judicial review on all matters. Not even most.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The Constitution lays out the rules that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches must play by. One of the roles of the Judiciary is to determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within the scope of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch. If you have an Executive that is intent on pushing his Constitutional and Congressional limitations, then you need a strong judiciary to push back and ensure that the delegated powers are not being abused. A strong judiciary rendering impartial decisions that are precedent based. That's it for today's civic's lesson.

Mike -

If the judiciary is proving, as they are, that they will block each and every action this President makes, are you ok with that?

The loony left (Hakeem Jefferies) already stated that they would use the courts as a tool to stop this President.

Where do checks and balances end and judicial anarchy begin? You can't just be ok with it because Orange Man bad.

And like I said, your democrat party will get slaughtered in 2026.

Your posts here exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our system of government. The courts are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in our current situtation: constrain unconstitutional actions by an overreaching executive branch. trump and Elon Musk don't decide what actions by the executive branch pass constitutional muster. The courts do that.

Educate yourself:

>>>Since the early days of the republic, the federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. The Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) implied, and later cases confirmed, that federal courts also possess authority to review the actions of the executive branch. As another essay in this series explains, that review frequently concerns the actions of administrative agencies, particularly since the early twentieth-century inception of the modern administrative state. On various occasions throughout history, and more frequently in modern times, the judiciary has also been called upon to assess the validity of formal directions the president has issued to executive branch agencies and officials, most commonly in the form of executive orders. Federal court review of executive orders helps to define the scope of presidential powers and serves as a significant aspect of the checks and balances woven into the American constitutional system.<<<<

https://www.fjc.gov/history/ad...nal%20in%20substance.

When the Executive acts outside its vested constitutional power, the Executive delegitimizes itself.

The Courts decide. Of you do not like that change the Constitution or rebellion.

You seem to assume Steve that because a judge slaps Trump’s hand that the judge is overstepping his Constitutional role. Have you considered the possibility that Trump may actually be overstepping his Constitutional role? Not like Trump’s record at the courthouse is stellar, nor is his respect for the Constitution. Presidents for years have tried to use Executive Orders as a means to extend their Constitutional reach . . . and courts have on occasion had to slap them down. You might have heard of checks and balances at some point. That’s how it works. Civics 2.0.

Again, there is a thread on here where I provided over a century worth of precedent where the Court smacked down an unconstitutional executive order for folks to be able to go read those cases.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, there is a thread on here where I provided over a century worth of precedent where the Court smacked down an unconstitutional executive order for folks to be able to go read those cases.

It's not even an issue that can be debated. Courts have the power to review and strike down EO's that are found to be unlawful.

Unless you are a member of a cult. Then, the cult leader can do whatever he wants.

And Trump has a history of issuing more Executive Orders per year than any President since Carter. The more you issue, the more that are likely to be challenged. Especially when you are someone that has demonstrated repeatedly that he has disdain for the Constitution and Constitutional processes and likes to just make up the rules as he goes.

Executive Orders apply ONLY to Executive Agencies, and like all other acts by a President must comply with Federal Law, which are enacted by Congress. Per the Constitution Federal spending is the purview of Congress, which directs the President how to spend the public's money.

The vast majority of what Elon Musk and his minions are calling "fraud" or "corruption" are neither, it's simply spending ordered by Congress with which they philosophically disagree. almost entirely along culture war lines.

Since the first decade of the 19th Century the judiciary has had two primary responsibilities beyond adjudicating criminal and civil matters: reviewing the Constitutionality of Acts of Congress and reviewing the lawfulness of the President's execution of Congressional mandates.

This is the Constitutional Order Trump is working to replace with an Imperial Presidency with no limits on his power with a supine Legislature to do his bidding and a toothless Judiciary that cannot interfere with any whim he has.

I prefer a Constitutional approach.

I keep seeing posts that trump is using 0bama's 2014 US Digital Service Dept for DOGE. Is this true?

quote:

0bama's 2014 US Digital Service Dept for DOGE. Is this true?

Here is the truth

https://crsreports.congress.go...oduct/pdf/IN/IN12493

My reading they are separate w USDS being ordered by E.0. to implement a “Software Modernization Initiative,” which
would seek to improve the efficiency of federal software and information technology (IT) systems as wellCongressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12493 CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service 2 as promote interoperability among agency networks and systems.

To facilitate this effort, agency heads
are directed to provide USDS “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.”

OMG
Don't get me started on what the feds think of as modern software. One example, the IRS classifies any server(and chattels) under 25 years old as "current"

Biden ( under the orders of his handlers, we now know) was throwing out anything for EO's. They said it was up to the courts to decide what was allowed.
The same should apply to Trump, if they did to Biden. The courts should decide in a reasonable amount of time, I hope....

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Biden ( under the orders of his handlers, we now know) was throwing out anything for EO's. They said it was up to the courts to decide what was allowed.
The same should apply to Trump, if they did to Biden. The courts should decide in a reasonable amount of time, I hope....

Biden signed 167 EO's in four years. trump has signed 64 in less than a month.

President Biden did not sign an EO voiding Heller and McDonald.

Trump has done that concerning part of the 14th Amendment.

Interesting, first it was all the “lawfare” noise. Now any judge that has the temerity to take issue with an action by Trump is labeled a rogue judge that needs to be impeached. Trump has destroyed American confidence in the electoral process. Worked hard to do the same for law enforcement. Now it’s the judiciary. No institution is immune to his efforts to install himself as the supreme leader whose actions are incapable of being questioned.

How many EO's by a president isnt the issue.
It's that they can and should be legal ones.
That is a job for the courts, no matter which party makes them. What is good for one, is good for the other.
Jines, we just had an election that was uncontested. Where is the "Trump destroyed American confidence in the electoral process" you are talking about?

Well there seems to be a lack of restraint that all other Administrations understood.

Case in point, in England the Sovereign can reject the selection for Prime Minister. However, if the Sovereign did not exercise restraint and did this too often, governing like a jackass, a political revolution against the sovereign would ensue.

The argument has been made w pardons as a similar situation. I do not support it, but if the people and states are upset enough by it they can and will amend the Constitution.

When people on this site and across the body politic believe an election was illegitimate as they do w 2020, confidence is destroyed.

The fact that the Left, unlike the Right, acted like adults does not change that.

TB40, you must have missed the 2020 election. Might read up on it. Google “The Big Lie”.

Well jines, you must have missed we just had another election, and the news is not full of lack of confidence in the election. Do we only live in the past?
Heym, who decides what the proper number of EO's is? I have not seen that written anywhere.
I am not a fan of a single one, but obviously you have a number that is OK, but not to be crossed.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
TB40, you must have missed the 2020 election. Might read up on it. Google “The Big Lie”.

nah, i'd rather LISTEN to dem Pundits saying harris didn't win due to racist/woman hating GOP -- you know, all those GOP that suddenly party swap .. oh, wait, you mean dems posted lower numbers than before...

things that make you go HMMMM

Nope Harris lost mostly due to perceived economic conditions.

Economic conditions this President is voluntarily talking about making worse.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
How many EO's by a president isnt the issue.
It's that they can and should be legal ones.
That is a job for the courts, no matter which party makes them. What is good for one, is good for the other.
Jines, we just had an election that was uncontested. Where is the "Trump destroyed American confidence in the electoral process" you are talking about?

trump has spent the last 5 years trying to destroy American confidence in the electoral process by claiming he won when he lost in 2020. Filing lawsuits, constantly claiming fraud, never shutting up about how the system was rigged.

Interesting to note that when he won in 2024, all that bullshit went away. Suddenly, the system is sound and trustworthy. Because he won.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Nope Harris lost mostly due to perceived economic conditions.

Economic conditions this President is voluntarily talking about making worse.

i agree --
that's not what i said, though -

Please. Harris lost because she was a terribly flawed candidate that was only the candidate because Biden refused to abdicate in a timely manner that would have allowed the Democrats to go through the primary process.

I'm not saying that whoever the dem candidate might have been would have won. But, at least a viable choice could have been made. I still don't understand how she even became the candidate. And, nobody else does either. The perfect set of circumstances resulting in the election of an idiot like trump.

Perfect storm.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
How many EO's by a president isnt the issue.
It's that they can and should be legal ones.
That is a job for the courts, no matter which party makes them. What is good for one, is good for the other.
Jines, we just had an election that was uncontested. Where is the "Trump destroyed American confidence in the electoral process" you are talking about?

trump has spent the last 5 years trying to destroy American confidence in the electoral process by claiming he won when he lost in 2020. Filing lawsuits, constantly claiming fraud, never shutting up about how the system was rigged.

Interesting to note that when he won in 2024, all that bullshit went away. Suddenly, the system is sound and trustworthy. Because he won.

odd .. the left SCREAMS ACAB - so we get body cams -- and suddenly it's better ---

what changed?

MONITORING -

millions of missing votes - where they go, Mike? you could win a noble if you figured it out