- Nov 15, 2006
- 48,917
- 17,530
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Allow me an example:
Biden campaigns on the promise to forgive student debt.
- He moves through the executive branch to fulfil campaign promise
- Opposing side says, you can't do that - takes it to court
- Court says no - you can't - his people call it judicial over reach - his opponents say executive power should be checked.
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.
- He tries to find another way to do it - his people think it's great - his opponents call it trying to circumvent the courts.
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.Not let's look at Trump:
Trump campaign on the promise to cut spending and waste:
- He moves through the executive branch to fulfil campaign promise
- Opposing side says, you can't do that - takes it to court
- Court says no - you can't - his people call it judicial over reach - his opponents say executive power should be checked.
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.
- He tries to find another way to do it - his people think it's great - his opponents call it trying to circumvent the courts.
Not quite.Same series of events - different sides.
Yes, it is. Are you trying to imply that I did not comprehend something? If so, please explain.Like I said comprehension is important
The courts can only protect us from things that are illegal, not from things that are stupid.
" 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)
Post #18Yes, 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....
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.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.
Are you the hall monitor?This is where you could provide one.