BillsFanNC Posted March 19 Posted March 19 Now you know why The Autopen POTUS and democrats in Congress spent the Biden term rubber stamping unqualified marxist judges. Turns out leftists always wanted an actual constitutional crisis. 1 1
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 Maybe Trump should follow the laws, hm? I think that demanding all judges agree with the president results in a bit of a dictatorship. 1 1 3
Niagara Bill Posted March 19 Posted March 19 Yes, that darn extreme liberal Judge Robert's...how dare he actually express there are processes that the law requires to be followed. The prez is one third of the equal branches, but that is hard to see 57 days into the term. If citizens cannot see the dictatorship coming, shame. Wake up before it is too late. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted March 19 Posted March 19 11 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Yes, that darn extreme liberal Judge Robert's...how dare he actually express there are processes that the law requires to be followed. The prez is one third of the equal branches, but that is hard to see 57 days into the term. If citizens cannot see the dictatorship coming, shame. Wake up before it is too late. They’re unhappy with their predicaments. They’ll find out that the grass isn’t greener. In fact, it’s full of grifting weeds.
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 42 minutes ago, B-Man said: Look at these statistics on national injunctions imposed by District Court judges from a recent Harvard Law Review article. 67% of all injunctions this century came against President Trump in his first term and 92% were imposed by Democrat-appointed judges. So follow the laws, dipshit 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 19 Posted March 19 51 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Yes, that darn extreme liberal Judge Robert's...how dare he actually express there are processes that the law requires to be followed. The prez is one third of the equal branches, but that is hard to see 57 days into the term. If citizens cannot see the dictatorship coming, shame. Wake up before it is too late. There is some personal relationship between the two that might impact Robert's opinion here. And cards on the table, we all know this isn't about following the law but rather its about liberals using lower courts to resist the administration's actions absent any power to do so through the executive branch, Congress, or the SCOTUS. Over time higher courts will likely back the administration. But the injunctions are effective in blocking and delaying the agenda with little to no consequences. Really, otherwise what is the purpose of a ruling blocking the deportation of illegal criminal gang members? Do liberals believe gang members are deserving of their attention like other marginalized groups they claim to protect? 1 1
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 9 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: There is some personal relationship between the two that might impact Robert's opinion here. And cards on the table, we all know this isn't about following the law but rather its about liberals using lower courts to resist the administration's actions absent any power to do so through the executive branch, Congress, or the SCOTUS. Over time higher courts will likely back the administration. But the injunctions are effective in blocking and delaying the agenda with little to no consequences. Really, otherwise what is the purpose of a ruling blocking the deportation of illegal criminal gang members? Do liberals believe gang members are deserving of their attention like other marginalized groups they claim to protect? They deserve due process like all human beings in a first world country. 1 1
B-Man Posted March 19 Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, Roundybout said: They deserve due process like all human beings in a first world country. Nice phrasing. Human beings in third world countries don't 'deserve' due process.
BillsFanNC Posted March 19 Author Posted March 19 Violent criminal illegal aliens have exactly zero "due process" rights under the constitution. But it's nice to see Roundy still dutifully downloading its talking points and puking them out here. 1 1
Big Blitz Posted March 19 Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: Yes, that darn extreme liberal Judge Robert's...how dare he actually express there are processes that the law requires to be followed. The prez is one third of the equal branches, but that is hard to see 57 days into the term. If citizens cannot see the dictatorship coming, shame. Wake up before it is too late. It’s a tax. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 19 Posted March 19 3 hours ago, Roundybout said: Maybe Trump should follow the laws, hm? I think that demanding all judges agree with the president results in a bit of a dictatorship. Judge making up laws as they go is very problematic to me. USAID is under the umbrella of the executive branch, Congress funds it but once it gets to the executive branch it is under the presidents direction. There is no law that states the president must follow the "wishes" of the Congress with that money unless it is expressly written in the budget, and USAID does not have explicit language. What laws do you see him breaking?
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 59 minutes ago, B-Man said: Nice phrasing. Human beings in third world countries don't 'deserve' due process. We aren’t a third world country, genius. 23 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Judge making up laws as they go is very problematic to me. USAID is under the umbrella of the executive branch, Congress funds it but once it gets to the executive branch it is under the presidents direction. There is no law that states the president must follow the "wishes" of the Congress with that money unless it is expressly written in the budget, and USAID does not have explicit language. What laws do you see him breaking? Impoundment Control Act.
B-Man Posted March 19 Posted March 19 11 minutes ago, Roundybout said: We aren’t a third world country, genius. Lord you are dumb. Right over your head Meanwhile:
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Lord you are dumb. Right over your head Meanwhile: You have to make a point first for that to happen. Why do you want the president to have complete, unchallenged authority to do whatever he wants without judicial review?
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 19 Posted March 19 37 minutes ago, Roundybout said: We aren’t a third world country, genius. Impoundment Control Act. "The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process. Although the basic framework of the act is sound, there are several refinements that could be made to the law and the way it is administered." What did Congress say from its review?
Roundybout Posted March 19 Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: "The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process. Although the basic framework of the act is sound, there are several refinements that could be made to the law and the way it is administered." What did Congress say from its review? Did Congress do a review?
Recommended Posts