Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[Postvieww]

. Why would your ethics depend on mine?

They don’t. Just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Postvieww]

If he did or not is utterly irrelevant as to whether you think presidents should be impeached if they do.

You are right it is irrelevant. I am just amused at the double standard.

 

[QvQ]

Who does The FBI director answer to? Donald Trump or John Roberts? Which one of them can fire the FBI director?

Thats tells you where the FBI fits in the giant org chart of US govt.

It is not a question of hiring, who funds or the number of police officers or the organization of the Police Department.
That is Administrative, and within the scope of a Mayor's Authority

It is a question of who Authorizes the enforcement agency
The Mayor may pay the police officers
But the Mayor does not have the Authority to order the police to arrest his neighbor and lock that neighbor in the basement of City Hall.

Only the Courts have that authority and the FBI is authorized within the DOJ (Judicial) with additional national security authority granted by Congress.
The FBI does not answer to the President and the FBI should not be taking orders from the President except as authorized by Law.

For instance, if JFK instructs the FBI, DOJ to enforce a Court Order ending segregation that is Authority from the Court

If a President orders the FBI to collect information about a political opponent that is not Authorized by the Courts.
Same as the mayor ordering the police to lock his neighbor in the basement of City hall

Which brings us back to the OP of "ignoring a SC order." The mayor is ignoring or attempting to usurp the Authority of the Court which is Contempt, at least.

 

[durangodawood]

They don’t. Just pointing out the obvious.

The do though! Perhaps not my views specifically, but other peoples'. You literally said it here:

Well now the president has been set. If it was alright for Joe so be it.

Basically if other people let Joe skate, then YOU think its ok to let Trump do the same.

This is a terrible way to formulate ones ethics. They should be based on principled right and wrong, and not what others have gotten away with.

 

[Postvieww]

This is a terrible way to formulate ones ethics. They should be based on principled right and wrong, and not what others have gotten away with.

Give me a link to where you showed the same opinion of Biden and I will apologize to you on this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

You are right it is irrelevant. I am just amused at the double standard.

Now I can't remember if you said you'd support him or not.

Edit: Having checked, yes you would. If you think someone else has got away with it then it becomes perfectly OK. That's what passes for ethics these days. And to be honest, that was the purpose of the thread. To exhibit that type of view. So in that regard it's been quite succesful.

Thanks.

Edit again. I think I know what will happen now. You'll ask me if I think Biden should have been impeached. Which will simply serve to confirm your position. If you're asked if something is wrong, what you most definitely shouldn't do is base your answer on whether you think someone else got away with it. If my grandson used that sort of argument then I'd be having a word with him. But to be honest, he's old enough at ten to know that it's a nonsensical and ethically empty position.

 

[RDKirk]

Well now the president has been set. If it was alright for Joe so be it.

Clearly, they accept Joe as their role model.

 

[Postvieww]

Now I can't remember if you said you'd support him or not...

I generally support Trump and his policies. Hypotheticals do not serve a real purpose IMO. If I disagree on a major issue I’ll let you know.

 

[Postvieww]

Clearly, they accept Joe as their role model.

I guess we can now try to put them all in jail.

 

[RDKirk]

It is not a question of hiring, who funds or the number of police officers or the organization of the Police Department.
That is Administrative, and within the scope of a Mayor's Authority

It is a question of who Authorizes the enforcement agency

That would be the legislature. The legislature also authorizes the military. For instance, the commission of each US military officer exists by direct authorization of the Congress. Congress authorizes the President to appoint a specific number of military officers each year and directly confirms each general officer.

The Mayor may pay the police officers
But the Mayor does not have the Authority to order the police to arrest his neighbor and lock that neighbor in the basement of City Hall.

Certainly he does. That's exactly how it happens.

Only the Courts have that authority and the FBI is authorized within the DOJ (Judicial) with additional national security authority granted by Congress.
The FBI does not answer to the President and the FBI should not be taking orders from the President except as authorized by Law.

Of course they do. That's exactly how it happens. The president needs only a law passed by the legislature, not a court order.

For instance, if JFK instructs the FBI, DOJ to enforce a Court Order ending segregation that is Authority from the Court

The Court had to order the US Marshals for that task, as they did for Ruby Bridges. The president used the FBI after Congress made it a law.

If a President orders the FBI to collect information about a political opponent that is not Authorized by the Courts.
Same as the mayor ordering the police to lock his neighbor in the basement of City hall

No. As I've said, ordering the FBI to collect information on a suspect is an infringement of the 4th Amendment, which is the specific case that the Executive requires agreement by the Judiciary. However, if the FBI actually sees a criminal act, they do not need a court order to make the arrest. They only need the law passed by the legislature.

 

[Pommer]

Biden actually did that and who called for his impeachment?

When did President Biden ignore SCOTUS, in detail please.

 

[Bradskii]

I generally support Trump and his policies. Hypotheticals do not serve a real purpose IMO.

This one has already served its purpose.

 

[durangodawood]

Give me a link to where you showed the same opinion of Biden and I will apologize to you on this thread.

I dont want an apology. You haven't even offended me. I just want to discuss the OP question and the principles involved. The principle that right is whatever a president can get away with seems a terrible one.

(For the record there's loads of Biden actions and decisions I did not support, right up to the end with the pardon of his son).

 

[QvQ]

Certainly he does. That's exactly how it happens.

The legislature passes the law. The legislature does not enforce them. The law is subject to review by the Court and enforced by Officers of the Court.

So the mayor can order the police to grab someone and lock them in the basement of City Hall?
That is exactly how it happens??

 

[Oompa Loompa]

1. Would he?

Not impossible, but not likely.

2. Would you support him in doing so?

No.

 

[Postvieww]

When did President Biden ignore SCOTUS, in detail please.

Student loans.

 

[RDKirk]

The legislature passes the law. The legislature does not enforce them. The law is subject to review by the Court and enforced by Officers of the Court.

So the mayor can order the police to grab someone and lock them in the basement of City Hall?
That is exactly how it happens??

When people start offering silly hypotheticals, it signals they've lost the debate.

Do you recall when Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered the NYC police to begin "stop and frisk" operations? That did not require a court order. It didn't even require a specific law. It only came to a halt when a court eventually agreed it was a violation of the 4th amendment...which I've noted more than once is the one circumstance that requires prior agreement of a court.

 

[Pommer]

Student loans.

So much for “detail”.
Biden put forth a plan to “forgive student loans” under the 2003 (so-called) HEROS Act.
SCOTUS said no.
Then Biden tried to used another law the Higher Education Act, to forgive these debts.

That’s the opposite of ignoring SCOTUS.

 

[QvQ]

I've noted more than once is the one circumstance that requires prior agreement of a court.

It is not only Guliani who ordered police enforce his own particular laws. George Wallace was famous for it.
The courts halted "stop and frisk" because it was illegal. And George Wallace also.
I don't know what your argument is exactly.
Any order by the Administrator is the law?

It is the law the minute the law is passed and it then becomes the provence of the Court to enforce or review it.
Or can the mayor just make up a law and order the police to enforce it?

And "silly hypothetical" is what the dictators kings, mayors and other administrators have done throughout history.
It is a common practice. I bet we could find many more examples than Wallace and Gulliani.
Such as ordering the FBI to investigate political opponents.

 

[Postvieww]

So much for “detail”.
Biden put forth a plan to “forgive student loans” under the 2003 (so-called) HEROS Act.
SCOTUS said no.
Then Biden tried to used another law the Higher Education Act, to forgive these debts.

That’s the opposite of ignoring SCOTUS.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe From the above article: “Speaking in Culver City, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said his original plan to “provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt” was derailed by “MAGA Republicans” and “special interests” who challenged the plan in court. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” He apparently thinks defying the law is a virtue.” Biden’s perspective was a little different from yours! So much for your detail!