Trump wins in court

Always in His Presence said:

Allow me an example:

Biden campaigns on the promise to forgive student debt.

1. He moves through the executive branch to fulfil campaign promise
2. Opposing side says, you can't do that - takes it to court
3. Court says no - you can't - his people call it judicial over reach - his opponents say executive power should be checked.

Click to expand...

I don't recall any Democrat calling the Court's decision judicial overreach. Care to provide an example? I suppose it's possible someone somewhere said that somewhere I did not see it, but if so, it did not gain the traction as it has currently.

But feel free to prove otherwise, if you can.

Always in His Presence said:

1. He tries to find another way to do it - his people think it's great - his opponents call it trying to circumvent the courts.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it wasn't circumventing at all. One way to accomplish the goal wasn't legal, so he found a way that was. That's no more circumventing the courts than being cited for speeding and then not speeding afterward.

Always in His Presence said:

Not let's look at Trump:

Trump campaign on the promise to cut spending and waste:

1. He moves through the executive branch to fulfil campaign promise
2. Opposing side says, you can't do that - takes it to court
3. Court says no - you can't - his people call it judicial over reach - his opponents say executive power should be checked.

Click to expand...

Yup, that happened. But it didn't happen during Biden's term. Those who are now arguing that executive power shouldn't be checked by the judiciary did not say a word when the judiciary checked President Biden.

That, to me, shows that the problem wasn't the checking, but who was being checked.

Always in His Presence said:

1. He tries to find another way to do it - his people think it's great - his opponents call it trying to circumvent the courts.

Click to expand...

Um, actually, he's just been trying to do it anyway, despite it not being legal. At least, I can't recall any other ways attempted. Perhaps you can provide this information, if I somehow missed it.

Always in His Presence said:

Same series of events - different sides.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

Which was my point.

-- A2SG, but, as always, feel free to provide documentation to show where I missed something.....

Always in His Presence said:

Like I said comprehension is important

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Are you trying to imply that I did not comprehend something? If so, please explain.

-- A2SG, vague passive aggressive insinuations don't count for much in my book....

essentialsaltes said:

The courts can only protect us from things that are illegal, not from things that are stupid.

Click to expand...

" A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack!—STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. And then somebody sent me one."
-Antonin Scalia (former Supreme Court justice)

JSRG said:

" A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack!—STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. And then somebody sent me one."
-Antonin Scalia (former Supreme Court justice)

Click to expand...

-- A2SG, say goodnight, Dick....

Always in His Presence said:

Post #18

Nothing passive nor aggressive - just pointing out what should be obvious. We have different viewpoints - most likely will not agree - but I calls them as I sees them.

Click to expand...

I addressed post #18 in post #22. Feel free to provide any of the examples I asked for so I can see what was so obvious that i didn't comprehend.

-- A2SG, it's the only way I can learn...

Always in His Presence said:

Try an accurate one.

Click to expand...

This is where you could provide one.