So the fascism you have said you believe in includes Fueherprinzip does it? Nothing must exist to cloud the sacred word of the Fearless Leader, to stand between his sacred personage and the people , right? You're beginning to look, talk and quack more like a duck every day
These are Federal appointments they can't be fired, they must resign or retire, and they are just doing their jobs and many were conservative appointments so I don't the issue save the EO were found in violation of the Constitution the highest law of our land.
It's a good thing the President can't fire judges. Federal Judges can only be impeached by Congress. Otherwise they serve for life, or until they resign. It's one of the checks on government power. The sad thing is that most Trumpers actually think he has the authority to fire judges. They should go back to elementary school, and learn this stuff like the rest of us did.
If trump does try to fire judges over this crap, it's a sign that he plans on becoming a dictator, just like his cultist followers want.
The job of the courts is to decide the lawfulness of an EO NOT to try to psycho analyze the President who wrote it.
Left wing judges have already become the dictatorship; getting rid of them simply frees us from that dictatorship, and returns us to the constitutional limits our country was founded upon. We can't fire them per se, but we certainly should be taking every legal effort available to replace them with judges grounded in constitutional restraint.
Did you read the opinion the judges sent down? Trump's EO was not well worded or implemented at all. He should have placed a ban on all countries that have none or few ways of adequately tracking their populations. War torn, or corruption invested countries. Also any with large populations of anti american sentiment.
yep, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is a "domestic enemy." Given your propensity to do violence and your hatred of liberty, I think it is you that is the unAmerican domestic enemy.
Hardly, it is obvious that you support Judicial Fiat. Congress should make the laws, the President should be fully in charge of immigration and national security, and the courts only to insure the original intent and meaning of US laws should be upheld. BTW, what infringements on the 2nd Amendment do you support?
The OP is actually a Hillaryite who occasionally posts as a Republican (or deputy director of the Cincinatti field office of the FBI).
I haven't said anything about what I support, other than the principles of liberty. Where does the Constitution give the President control over immigration? In fact, the only thing it mentions is naturalization, which relates to citizensip, and that power is delegated to Congress. It's not me who wants judicial fiat, you want to upend the Constitution to suit your agenda. None whatsoever. What infringements on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments do you support? I can think of one infringement on the 5th amendment I'd support. and that is ending eminent domain. But you big-government lovers would never stand for that.
I used the words "constitutional limits" and "constitutional restraint" for a reason. Those words obviously escape the translational acumen of the left, since it is the left that wants all judges to conform to their beliefs, and not the constitution that governs such matters.
""""since it is the left that wants all judges to conform to their beliefs"""" Ya, and the right doesn't care if judges are conservative or not...( SARCASM ALERT)
No we can only fire Justices who refuse to implement gay right decisions, not ones who refuse to implement right wing decisions.
They are people that live in fear which is why the only part of The Constitution that rant about and bring up ad nauseam is the 2nd amendment. This is why Trump was so effective at manipulating them. They need an authoritarian daddy figure to scare away the boogeyman even if that daddy figure is a low-life liar and swindler.
That's like firing a doctor because he found cancer in your X-ray. These courts are not opposing Trumps orders, they are finding a conflict between those orders and our other laws. If you want to remove that conflict, change one or the other: the orders or our laws. Some of those laws are in our constitution so changing them will have deep ramifications, but those are the two options. I guess the third is hire an incompetent doctor or judge who can't find the problems... but that also has long term costs.
Actually, I read an Oxford dictionary on US Government(not even the latest edition, up until 2000) and there were more embarassing case dockets I'm sure that Court wouldn't want me to refer to. The absolutist interpretation of the State/Church Clause being one of many things. I'm not looking, talking or quacking like a duck. I'm talking like a US Citizen who expects my political body to function, and it cannot function(effectively) so long as that thing called SCOTUS exists. Its an imperial majesty, masquerading as a "check".
Pretty shocking, the number of Americans who need a Daddy figure. These people are entirely open to a despot in the White House. No different from the minority in Germany in the 1930s who hated open-ended freedom and loved Hitler so much.
