Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[Nithavela]

If I am wrong correct me.

I wouldn't have.

Think we can stop this hypothetical whataboutism now?

 

[Postvieww]

I wouldn't have.

Think we can stop this hypothetical whataboutism now?

The thread is based on a hypothetical.

 

[Postvieww]

There's an gov admin called the General Accounting Office and that's what they do all day long.

Which obviously has been a failure.

If Trump want's Musk to audit government agencies, then fire that head and have Musk go through the nomination process and hire him.

And the head of any organization is the one we want doing the audit????? I think we will stick with the President’s plan who was elected saying he would do just what he is doing. BTW a federal just ruled Trump can freeze some federal spending

 

[expos4ever]

I suspect they would follow him as long as what he is doing is triggering the left. Even if it hurts themselves, as long as it is triggering for the left.

I suspect you are right. Taking "revenge" feels very very good to the human brain. And I would entirely expect that this dynamic is at play in many Trump supporters.

 

[stevil]

When comes to kangaroo courts usurping presidential executive power, they probably will take it.

The courts are a check and balance on the president, so that he can't cross the line and do things that are illegal or unconstitutional.
It is necessary to have checks and balances on the president, The constitution was created for a reason and that reason was to limit the power of the president. If you disagree with the constitution, well there is a process where the constitution can be amended. Not by the president alone, but by a 2/3rds majority in the house, senate and states.

 

[Postvieww]

The courts are a check and balance on the president, so that he can't cross the line and do things that are illegal or unconstitutional.
It is necessary to have checks and balances on the president, The constitution was created for a reason and that reason was to limit the power of the president. If you disagree with the constitution, well there is a process where the constitution can be amended. Not by the president alone, but by a 2/3rds majority in the house, senate and states.

All sounds so neat and tidy . Tell us who is the check on the courts with activist judges? The truth is in this present situation the courts are being misused by liberals who have no other way to slow down the will of the people who won the last election. Trump is acting within the law and his authority. In fact one federal judge just ruled that the President does have the authority to stop some funds from going forward.

 

[Postvieww]

The constitution was created for a reason and that reason was to limit the power of the president.

That same constitution grants certain powers to the President that were never intended to be overturned by activist judges.

 

[stevil]

That same constitution grants certain powers to the President that were never intended to be overturned by activist judges.

I guess a way of thinking about it is, if the other person did this, If Biden or Karmala or Hilary did this or a leftist version of this, would you hope the judges would cite law or constitution to prevent abuse of presidential power?

 

[Postvieww]

I guess a way of thinking about it is, if the other person did this, If Biden or Karmala or Hilary did this or a leftist version of this, would you hope the judges would cite law or constitution to prevent abuse of presidential power?

I have seen no evidence or have confidence that those people would be on the right side of the law or the constitution. There is no current abuse of presidential power that is a false charge of the left. The abusers were sent home January 20.

 

[stevil]

I have seen no evidence or have confidence that those people would be on the right side of the law or the constitution. There is no current abuse of presidential power that is a false charge of the left. The abusers were sent home January 20.

The judge, not "the left" has said that Trump doesn't have the constitutional grounds or legal grounds to freeze the funds. An Appeals court has supported the judge's decision.

 

[Postvieww]

The judge, not "the left" has said that Trump doesn't have the constitutional grounds or legal grounds to freeze the funds. An Appeals court has supported the judge's decision.

Stay tuned!

 

[stevil]

All sounds so neat and tidy . Tell us who is the check on the courts with activist judges?

The appeals courts are there to catch it when a judge makes a corrupt or erroneous judgement.
And I presume there is some sort of impeachment process should judges be proven to be corrupt.

The truth is in this present situation the courts are being misused by liberals who have no other way to slow down the will of the people who won the last election.

If you stop believing in the system. Then all you have left at your disposal is violence to decide who has power and what power they are to have.

Trump is acting within the law and his authority.

That is an assertion made by you. The judge and the appeals court decided otherwise.
If you are not going to respect the judges when they make decisions you don't like, and instead you are going to appeal to some conspiracy, then really, just either be grumpy or join some sort of insurrection to overthrow the current system.

 

[Bradskii]

All sounds so neat and tidy . Tell us who is the check on the courts with activist judges?

The Supreme Court. If you have a problem with any other court, you appeal. You might be able to take your appeal up the chain to the SC and if you do, that's it. You accept their verdict.

Unless you'd like to disagree with that?

 

[Postvieww]

The Supreme Court. If you have a problem with any other court, you appeal. You might be able to take your appeal up the chain to the SC and if you do, that's it. You accept their verdict.

Unless you'd like to disagree with that?

Over ruling an activist judge months and years after the corrupt judge has imposed a corrupt ruling and caused harm can hardly be called justice. Again who can deal with a judge who is violating his oath?

 

[Postvieww]

then really, just either be grumpy or join some sort of insurrection to overthrow the current system.

Have you noticed the unhinged democrat leaders in Washington calling for violence in the streets?

 

[Bradskii]

Over ruling an activist judge months and years after the corrupt judge has imposed a corrupt ruling and caused harm can hardly be called justice. Again who can deal with a judge who is violating his oath?

A higher court. But again, if you have a problem with the Supreme Court acting as the final arbitrator, then bring it to the table. Otherwise I'll assume that you accept that.

 

[Bradskii]

Have you noticed the unhinged democrat leaders in Washington calling for violence in the streets?

I saw some calling for protests. Are you against protesting as well? Anyway, if you can give us the information on any leader from either party calling for violence then let's hear about and we can all join in to tell them what we think of such an atrocious comment. I'll be here when you find the i formation.

 

[stevil]

Have you noticed the unhinged democrat leaders in Washington calling for violence in the streets?

No, do you have links?

 

[Postvieww]

I saw some calling for protests. Are you against protesting as well? Anyway, if you can give us the information on any leader from either party calling for violence then let's hear about and we can all join in to tell them what we think of such an atrocious comment. I'll be here when you find the i formation.

There are more. Stay tuned

 

[Bradskii]

There are more.

More statements calling for protests? They're not needed. But hey, let's agree that if anyone is truly idiotic enough to think that Jeffries means that people should resort to violence to get what they want then you and I can call those people out and tell them how wrong they are. Agreed?