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

why did they have no business on the bench?

because they weren't white supremacist fascists?

is that the litmus test to be a judge now?

 

And that has what to do with this particular situation?

 

Trump has proven he is dangerous with his own powers, with reckless pardoning to give an example, pardoning criminals to appease his base. Sometimes you have to have judges keep authoritarians in check.

 

His judge picks were so bad, his own Supreme Court nominees laughed their rulings out of the SCOTUS.

 

It is with mixed emotions that I must disagree with you. Believe me, I have been infuriated by judges who stop the Congress and/or the President from doing what they want to do at times. I am especially infuriated when I believe the judge is doing this for partisan or personal philosophical reasons - and some do - instead of strictly adhering to the words of the Constitution.

But, at the same time, I must recognize that the Constitution is the law of our land, and it is truly an amazing document. And the Judicial Branch is the 3rd branch of 3 equal branches of government. This ability of federal judges to stop the President and/or Congress is also a protection to our freedom. It is unfortunate that the Judicial Branch did not stop the detention of Americans of Japanese decent during WW2. It's unfortunate that it took until the 1950s/60s for the courts to start really protecting the rights of black Americans. I mention those two things as examples of where some judicial action should have been taken but wasn't. And so, without those judges stopping things, these injustices happened. It should be reassuring to know that judges hold the power to protect our fundamental rights if called upon to do so.

But this is also why we must select constructionist, contextualist judges who are committed to upholding the Constitution regardless of their personal feelings or political persuasion.

Seth

 

I'm not sure you are one that I would think of when I think of someone who criticizes both sides. You do have a side, although you may actually think you are above such things. Certainly the the idea that, "some would say the same about you guys" seems to confirm that.

All things being equal, I would prefer that there had been no changes to confirming judges, but once the first shot is fired, those expectations go out the window.

 

garland was not a ubber liberal, Obama had to pick a moderate as republicans controlled congress, but I think you know that

 

yes, and I am sure democrats will add seats now that republicans did this and fill them with the new 50 vote rules when they gain power, this is not good for America, republicans started this

democrats did start it for the other Judges and Republicans were using that to their advantage too

but this new rule is all Republicans, they own it, and democrats will use it when in power too

I criticized Obama when I disagreed with him too, I also criticized Dems when they changed the judges rules

republicans wanted to end this rule on lower judges too, sadly dems did it for them

"

Senate Republicans' Bid to Destroy the Filibuster Option, And Push Through Ultraconservative Federal Judges:
It Seems Likely the "Nuclear Option" Actually Will Be Used"

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...through-ultraconservative-federal-judges.html

 

You are actually blaming Republicans for something that the Democrats have not even be able to do yet; add seats to the Supreme Court. But when they're back in power and do it, it's the Republican's fault?

OK. And you also attack both sides.

 

Nope. Respect the Constitution and the laws passed by the peoples' house and signed by the then sitting President.

We know about fascists.

They weaponize the IRS, attacking opponents with audits and other forms of harassment;

They let assault weapons walk across the southern border in an attempt to have American bodies justify the repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

They have a Lois Lerner clone slow walk applications for raising funds to support free speech they don't agree with;

They unleash the NSA to spy on American citizens, lie to Congress about it, exiling anyone who blows the whistle on their crimes and lies;

They order the investigation of a reporter who like James Rosen reports news they don't like;

They order high tech assassination of an American Citizen like Anwar al-Awlaki on suspicion of crimes, creating a new form of due process;

They force American citizens to buy products and services whether they need or want them;

They unleash intelligence agencies to spy on the campaign of opposing candidates;

They undermine the background check system by bribing localities to look the other way when students commit crimes so criminal students can purchase weapons to shoot up schools in an attempt to justify the repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

If you'd like to fill in how judges act on their fascist tendencies, feel free.

We already know that Ruth Bader Ginsberg has no respect for the Constitution she swore an oath to defend ,,, she likes the South African Constitution and Canadian Constitution and she's proud to announce it.

 

actually they are if the law is unconstitutional, if the law does not violate the constitution they should leave it up to congress and the President to pass laws

if congress passed a law outlawing all religions but one, that woudl be an example of something to block

 

1) What prevents the United States from turning into a fascist state, as the Libs keep screaming, or a tyranny is our system of checks and balances.

2) "Stop" is the wrong word. "Slow down" is the accurate term. Our courts are a system that allow appeal with SCOTUS being the highest court.

3) Congress is the legislative branch, but they are so partisan and incompetent (the Strzok public dog and pony show is an excellent example) that they've neutered themselves leaving it up to the courts to "legislate". Hence the screams about "activist judges". If Congress did their frickin' job, judges would have less to do.

4) What would be really dangerous is setting the precedent of undercutting the courts and ruling the nation as a popularity contest. That may work for a few years, but then it would easily flip-flop in 2020 or 2024.

 

no one has weaponized the IRS, both dems and repubs get reviewed for tax free status if they are suspected to be political, especially when they use political names like 'tea party' in their names as they do not qualify if political in nature

the very point that you say they were denied based on their party shows they were political, even you can see they might of been political based on their names, which puts them up for addl review

I have known people that got their taxes back late for a typo in their name, any mistakes can cause delays - and creating a group with a political name when the qualifiers are not to be political is not gonna put you on the fast track for approval

 

Much of what we have seen recently are judges making up their own laws based on what they think Trump is thinking. We had judges giving rights to foreigners that don't exist based on something Trump said in a campaign speech or whispered in his sleep ,,, not based on law passed by Congress and signed by the duly elected President. Sad that the establishment want outsiders kept out of DC and are working overtime to prevent the voices of the people from counting.

 

Regular Americans agree with legal immigration, vetting, and the protection of our citizens. Unfortunately, some people, including some judges, really don't.

And yeah, the "permanent Washington" elites can't stand it that someone outside of their control got elected.

 

Why are you defending an anti-American Jihadist who fomented hate and war on the US? I'd have shot the *********ker myself if given the chance. I applaud the use of a Hellfire missile up his ass as one of the best things Obama ever authorized. As President GW Bush stated, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". Any American who is engaged as an anti-American terrorist or supporting anti-American terrorism should be treated as an enemy combatant.


Do you support the murder of 14 Americans and the injury of 32 others by al-Awlaki follower Nidal Hasan?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2009/11/28/Imam-s-e-mails-to-Fort-3556
E-mails between a U.S. Army officer and a radical Muslim cleric did not worry anti-terrorism investigators, they said, because nothing in the correspondence presaged violence. But elsewhere on the Internet, the imam was urging people to kill soldiers and others.

After accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan started e-mailing in December, the cleric increased the pace of his fundamentalist rhetoric on the Web, a Dallas Morning News investigation found.

"I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies," Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric with suspected ties to al-Qaeda, wrote in a February blog entry....

...
Nov. 9, 2009 -...he posts this on his blog:

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

"Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

 

So where in the Constitution do you find any authorization for the Judiciary to pick up what anyone might perceive as legislative slack?

 

My exact thought about it too.

 

It's not dangerous nor is it unusual..It's jurisprudence in ACTION!

 

In which manner? Be specific.

 

It started with Dred Scott.

 

Do the board a favor: read what I quoted, reread my response, and ask a question that makes sense.

I could hardly have been more so. You're welcome.

 

Andy Jackson.

Long may he remain on the twenty!

 

LOL an that enforce your own order nonsense resulted in the large scale death of men and women and children for no good reason but to bring shame on all of us to the end of time.

Jackson was the ******* who disobey the SC ruling resulting in thousands of deaths.

 

Actually, if the republicans lose the senate this time, they will reverse it before leaving office if they have any brains.

And as far as the loss of children and others because of it, lets be real, we kill half a million children on the liberals side of the aisle a year. No liberal gives a rat assss about children.