Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[RDKirk]

Where are the FBI's authorities located? | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.

www.fbi.gov

"as well as" indicates dual.
FBI are Officers of the Courts
as well as
National Security Agents for the Executive.

"...as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.."

That "as well as" has nothing to do with the courts. Neither of those clauses has anything to do with the courts.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The title says it all.

Apparently...he could. Two questions then arise:

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

From what I have read, the only recourse is impeachment. So c'mon, guys. This is where the rubber hits the road. How far do you follow this guy?

I am curious about the objective of this thread. Was it created to attack the supporters of President Trump?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

He does seem to have tendency to ignore the constitution and the law. I think that considering that the courts have put a hold on a couple of his edicts then it's reasonable to ask what might happen if he ignores their rulings and it goes all the way to the top. As it probably will. And then it's reasonable to ask if people would support him ignoring them. I'd like to know how far would they would go.

You are free to give an opinion on that.

My opinion is simple. I don’t answer hypostatical question to entertain the left to criticize me.

 

[Pommer]

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!

Biden tried to use another Law to forgive student loans after the Supreme Court said that he couldn’t forgive student loan under the Law that they originally tried!

SCOTUS did not rule that a President cannot ever “forgive student loans”, only that the legal mechanism that was employed was incorrect! So Biden tried a different strategy with a different Law.

Please learn how our system (used to) work!

 

[Bradskii]

I am curious about the objective of this thread. Was it created to attack the supporters of President Trump?

It was set up to see if anyone would support him in ignoring the SC. As the op obviously states. As one or two have said, they wouldn't support any president doing so. Trump is in the spotlight because he's the president and there are various courts putting holds on what he has attempted to do.

 

[Bradskii]

My opinion is simple. I don’t answer hypostatical question to entertain the left to criticize me.

You just did. Thanks for your input.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You just did. Thanks for your input.

Interesting, you're now telling me what I did or didn't say. Maybe you can also decide what I should or shouldn't think.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting, you're now telling me what I did or didn't say. Maybe you can also decide what I should or shouldn't think.

It's a simple question. There are only three options.

I would support him.
I would not support him.
I'm not going to tell you what I'd do.

The reasons why each might be chosen are blazingly obvious.

 

[Pommer]

My opinion is simple. I don’t answer hypostatical question to entertain the left to criticize me.

Okay, we can reframe the question,
“Is there anything that President Trump might do that would make you* revisit your support of him in the office he currently holds?”

I can certainly understand the reluctance to pose such a question to oneself, seeings how he’s probably not going to do anything so outlandish that you’d* have to reassess supporting Mister Trump.

*generic

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting, you're now telling me what I did or didn't say. Maybe you can also decide what I should or shouldn't think.

Maybe you believe that you should think the same as Vance. From here: Outrage after JD Vance claims judges are not allowed to check executive power

'JD Vance, the US vice-president, has been accused of threatening the US constitution after telling judges who have issued rulings temporarily blocking some of Donald Trump’s most contentious executive orders that they “aren’t allowed” to control the president’s “legitimate power”.'

So it's time to face reality. The courts' rulings on some matters are even now being challenged. When they are bumped up to the SC, then what do you think the response will be from Vance and the rest of this circus? 'Oh, gee - if it's the Supreme Court then maybe we'll have to listen to them'.

So now we don't have a 'hypostatical' any more. I can simply ask you if you agree with Vance. Then we'll have the answer that we need. Or maybe it'll be Option 3 again...

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Okay, we can reframe the question,
“Is there anything that President Trump might do that would make you* revisit your support of him in the office he currently holds?”

I can certainly understand the reluctance to pose such a question to oneself, seeings how he’s probably not going to do anything so outlandish that you’d* have to reassess supporting Mister Trump.

*generic

What led you to believe that I supported him initially?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

It's a simple question. There are only three options.

I would support him.
I would not support him.
I'm not going to tell you what I'd do.

The reasons why each might be chosen are blazingly obvious.

All of these are hypothetical questions. Let him violate the SC first, then I will tell you.

 

[Bradskii]

All of these are hypothetical questions.

The one about Vance isn't. Do you agree with his position?

Let him violate the SC first, then I will tell you.

You can't decide until he actually does it? What..?

 

[Pommer]

What led you to believe that I supported him initially?

The ‘you” is generic, (which is to say we’re talking about an absent third person), not you (in your person).

 

[wing2000]

The VP is already planting the seeds to question the court's authority (...his remarks are directed the District level court decisions...appeals, etc to follow):

Vice-President JD Vance has suggested judges do not have authority over the Trump administration's executive power, as the White House responds to a flurry of lawsuits that aim to stall its agenda.

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote on X.

Vance's remarks on Sunday came less than 24 hours after a judge blocked members of Trump's newly created advisory body, the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), from accessing sensitive US Treasury Department systems.

...

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal," he wrote.

Liz Cheney, a former Republican House representative who campaigned in the presidential election against Trump, snapped back at Vance.

"If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal," Cheney wrote on X.

"You don't get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That's tyranny."

Vance questions authority of US judges to challenge Trump

The vice-president says the judiciary cannot "control" the Trump administration's "legitimate power".

www.bbc.com

 

[Postvieww]

Biden tried to use another Law to forgive student loans after the Supreme Court said that he couldn’t forgive student loan under the Law that they originally tried!

SCOTUS did not rule that a President cannot ever “forgive student loans”, only that the legal mechanism that was employed was incorrect! So Biden tried a different strategy with a different Law.

Please learn how our system (used to) work!

Yours is a weak defense based on Biden’s own words. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” This proves his intent was to circumvent the SC ruling.

 

[wing2000]

From a 2017 survey of Americans:

Only 53% of those surveyed said that they “trust judges more than President Trump to make the right decisions for the United States.” In this cross-section of Americans, 38% said they trusted Donald Trump more than our country’s judges. 9% were undecided. Support for the rule of law seemed higher when respondents were asked whether they thought that President Trump should “be able to overturn decisions by judges” when he disagrees with those decisions. Here only 25% agreed, with 11% saying they were unsure.

But, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves as Trump supporters: 51% agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions. 33% disagreed. 16% were not sure.

Americans aren't as attached to democracy as you might think | Austin Sarat

A new national survey suggests that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens will stand up for the rule of law and democracy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bradskii]

Yours is a weak defense based on Biden’s own words. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” This proves his intent was to circumvent the SC ruling.

But not to ignore it. He didn't. It has been explained to you quite clearly that he obeyed the SC and took a different route to get what he wanted. The SC did not deny him the right to do that.

 

[Pommer]

Yours is a weak defense based on Biden’s own words. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” This proves his intent was to circumvent the SC ruling.

Methinks your understanding of what it is that politicians do is somewhat lacking…they try to do what they want, by finding a law that supports their authority to get what they want done.

If the “ABC Act” is nixed, the “XYZ Act“ is tried.

Trump’s approach seems to be of a different sort.

 

[Postvieww]

…they try to do what they want, by finding a law that supports their authority to get what they want done.

This sounds absurd ! Find a law to get away with it????? Methinks you try to hard to defend the last presidential imposter.