We are getting into dangerous waters when a single judge can block the president and congress

Sure ya did, rat cheer:

 

If Congress wrote laws that were Constitutional, then SCOTUS wouldn't have to rule on them. I'm truly sorry you cannot comprehend that simple fact.

 

And now you degenerate into name calling and demonization. I have never studied the guy...and certainly had no idea what your justification was.

 

Angry Democrat Obama Appointee

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington revoked Manafort’s bail, saying she had no choice but to lock him up because she couldn’t stop him from contacting people.

Amy Berman Jackson
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Incumbent
Assumed office March 18, 2011
Appointed by Barack Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Berman_Jackson

 

Name-calling? Are you going to report me for calling al-Awlaki a terrorist? It's pretty clear he was a terrorist. You are free to disagree and you are free to support him, but you might want to study him first. I've included links in previous posts. Just look up his name for numerous articles on him.

 

I don't care what you call Awlaki ... you are so far down some rabbit hole you no longer can remember your previous posts.

 

Obviously you do care for several previously seen reasons: 1) You supported Mitch in his assertion that al-Awlaki was only a suspect, not a known terrorist, meaning it was wrong to neutralize him with a Hellfire missile and 2) You accused me of name-calling in labeling al-Awlaki as a terrorist even though it's been well established that he was a Jihadist who fomented terror and responsible for encouraging harm to Americans including the Fort Hood attack.

Let's not forget it was you who posted this little gem: "I have never studied the guy...and certainly had no idea what your justification was." Meaning despite all fo your defense for the terrorist, you don't have a clue who he was.

 

The Democrats initiated the Nuclear Option for normal judges and now it has nuked them (dems deserved this as they shoudl of never done it)
The Republicans initiated the Nuclear Option for SC judges and now it will come back to nuke them (repubs will deserve this as they never shoudl of done it)

neither of these changes are good for America

 

not gonna happen, republican made the change, dems gonna enjoy it, after increasing the number of judges of course, filling those seats with only 50 votes each

why would dems trust republicans not just to change it again when they got in power, the only change that can be trusted now is a constitutional amendment

 

Judges have had this power for at least 60 years.

 

Unfortunately agreed and proving both parties have become so partisan they can't be expected to do anything reasonable nor logical. This bullshit will continue until most Americans turn in unison to parties willing to act in the best interests of America, not party politics.

 

The real problem is that unelected judges have way to much political power.

 

Such as? Who commands the military? Who controls the budget? Who controls legislation?

 

Alas, I've yet to encounter any evidence that you have any particular affinity for constitutionality, WRT acts of Congress or anything else.

 

Judges have vast impact on domestic policy including what can legally be spent. They routinely overturn legislation.

 

Since you are so far right that you are in serious danger of falling off the edge, I can see why you view me that way.

 

So, instead of telling you the legislation is bad, poor or has a poison pill in it, you immediately jump to the conclusion judges have too much power? Interesting.

 

No you can't. For that, you'd have to have a modicum of understanding of the Constitution.

 

Ahh, so you are claiming to be a mind-reader too! Fascinating. Your propensity for making wild accusations then running from them when called to prove your assertions is well known. Personally, as a student of psychology, I find your behavior interesting. People who are confident, intelligent, educated and sane act in a particular manner. People who are the opposite also act in a particular manner. Obviously there are a lot of variations in between. Figuring out where you are in the equation is a nice puzzle.

 

We set up the Judiciary with the power to block the Senate and the President. Our founders did this to prevent tyranny from the other branches. Judges are the protectors of the law and constitution from politicians. Now thankfully there are constitutional ways of blocking this judge if he is being tyrannical and unreasonable. Congress can vote on a constitutional amendment or the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Follow the constitution. If you don't like it then pass an amendment to the constitution.

 

Agreed. Obviously the Founders were a lot smarter than political partisans.

 

Such capacity is hardly required to render an assessment of constitutional acumen.

Not to me, it ain't. <shrug>

 

It is both the power of an individual judge has exceeded their power, and the ability to "judge shop" is what is destroying the legal side. If it is a federal judge, it should be set up randomly, not allow the plaintiffs to select who they want as a judge.

 

never happen, but I agree, politics has become like a sport, unless there is a constitutional amendment forcing them to have 60 votes

but neither side would agree to that while the court is not stacked in their favor, so maybe if they have enough control while it's in their favor such a change could happen, but the people would have to get out and vote on all those elections