Forum Thread

the 3 branches of the government

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • that guy in AZ
    05-10-2019 12:21:04 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to establish 3 branches of the government so that a system of checks and balances would exist. Trump, of course, is trying to turn our country into a dictatorship, and a step away from being a theocracy.

    He recently vetoed two resolutions passed by Congress, and he also defied them by declaring a "national emergency" when congress would not give him the money he wanted for his wall. His first veto rejected a bill that would block his border emeregncy, and his second veto was related to the Yemen War Powers.

    With his "wing man" Mitch McConnell, he is pushing to have as many conservative judges as possible (including 2 on the Supreme Court), and he just took it a stop further.

    I get regular mail from the Daily Caller (which was started by Tucker Carlson of FOX) and the article below should make your blood boil.

    Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump.The vice president said that in the coming days, administration officials will seek pathways to put the issue before the Supreme Cou​rt.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/09/thats-enough-trump-white-house-moves-ahead-with-reining-in-lower-court-judges-n2546110?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/10/2019&bcid=c8566d50a82c86e33a2479465cf7f317&recip=21447354

  • jaredsxtn
    05-10-2019 03:34:06 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I actually have mixed feelings on nationwide injunctions. It's hypocritical, but I like them when it benefits Democrats and I don't like them when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that isn't a proper way to govern.

    If I were to be honest, I'm fine with doing away with the process of allowing one District Court judge to hand down nationwide injunctions that affect people way outside of their limited jurisdiction. It breeds "judge shopping" and only exasperates the widening skepticism among the population that our courts are rigged.

    It also would benefit Democrats even when we're not in power because fringe far right-wing judges would no longer be able to unilaterally declare nationwide mandates or injunctions. Their rulings would only effect the very limited number of people residing in the district they reside pending the appeal process.

  • that guy in AZ
    05-10-2019 03:48:17 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    I actually have mixed feelings on nationwide injunctions. It's hypocritical, but I like them when it benefits Democrats and I don't like them when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that isn't a proper way to govern.

    If I were to be honest, I'm fine with doing away with the process of allowing one District Court judge to hand down nationwide injunctions that affect people way outside of their limited jurisdiction. It breeds "judge shopping" and only exasperates the widening skepticism among the population that our courts are rigged.

    It also would benefit Democrats even when we're not in power because fringe far right-wing judges would no longer be able to unilaterally declare nationwide mandates or injunctions. Their rulings would only effect the very limited number of people residing in the district they reside pending the appeal process.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Jared:

    I agree with you about "judge shopping". The reason that the Citizens United case went to the Supreme Court is that the original suit was brought in a court in Texas. On top of that, numerous states have filed bills to restrict abortion rights, and proponents of the bill will simply go shopping for the district that it finds the most friendly to their position.

  • wwjd
    05-10-2019 04:50:21 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Prediction: Going forward after Trump is nolonger in office, history is going use the Trump presidency as historical dividing line of "Pre Trump" and "Post Trump".

    Pre-Trump, many boundaries had a much higher threshold and only in rare circumstances did those lines get crossed. Pre-Trump Judges did not have a lot of reasons to over-rule presidential decisions because prior presidents vetted themselves to ensure it would be difficult for the court system to find holes in how they implemented their policies. Very little, if any, of Trump's policies get vetted by the White House prior to being rolled out, Trump is letting the court system do the vetting, thus its extremely easy for judges to find reasons support injunctions. Likely many of the legal mistakes made on part of the White House, first year law students would receive a failing grade if they were summit the exact same thing as a legal argument. And no doubt, in the Post Trump era, many of Trump's legal arguments will be used in Law schools everywhere as examples of poorly written legal arguments.

    What this could mean in the post Trump era, is that future presidents make impromptu policy decisions without having it vetted, and like Trump, let the court system do the vetting. Lets hopes new laws get passed that prevent Trump's lowing of standards down to trailer trash expectation so future Presidents can't just throw crap at the legal system hoping to get a friendly Judge to support whatever is on his desk.
Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts