58 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

Sad thing is people like you exist. Unless your joking

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

If you want to learn about political court/judge shopping that occurs in federal courts, some of the worst abuses of that occurred by Republican/conservative groups during the Biden administration with a single U.S. District Court judge in Texas who was a Trump appointee, and before that, had worked for the conservative Christian legal organization First Liberty Institute from 2014 to 2019.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

"Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ... is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017 and sworn in for the position in 2019.

 

Conservative groups and the Texas Attorney General tend to file cases in Kacsmaryk's jurisdiction so that he is likely to hear those cases, as he reliably rules against Democratic policies and for Republican policies.^[3][4] His court has been hospitable to conservative lawsuits that many lawyers consider meritless.

...

Conservative groups have strategically chosen to file lawsuits challenging many Biden administration policies in Kacsmaryk's division. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District; 95% of lawsuits filed there are assigned to him.^[34][3] By March 2023, the Texas Attorney General's Office under Ken Paxton filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Drew B. Tipton.^[35] Kacsmaryk and Tipton have denied various Justice Department motions to change venues.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

 

 

 

 

 

My point entirely. It affects both sides of the aisle. 

51 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Your response sidesteps my argument and serves up a mixed salad of logical fallacies:

• False Dichotomy: You’re acting like only SCOTUS can settle national issues, but district and appellate courts have jurisdiction over federal matters. It’s not either/or.

• Appeal to Authority: SCOTUS isn’t the only court with authority. Lower courts handle federal law all the time before SCOTUS gets involved.

• Strawman: I’m not saying a district judge can override the president on everything. They can block unlawful presidential actions, especially if there’s abuse of power or a constitutional violation.

• Slippery Slope: Claiming that district judges ruling on national issues leads to chaos is unfounded fear-mongering.

• Hasty Generalization: Disagreements between circuits don’t invalidate a district judge’s ruling. The system resolves those through appeals, not by breaking down.

In short, federal judges can rule on national matters, and district judges can stop presidential actions if they overstep. You’re making this unnecessarily complicated.

 

 

Drivel. But pleasing to think you put a lot of effort into that utter waste of space. 

51 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Your nice precis of Article III seems to have omitted most of the relevant facts.

Article III  Judicial Branch

• Section 1 Vesting Clause

  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
   

  • ArtIII.S1.1  Overview of Judicial Vesting Clause
  • ArtIII.S1.2  Historical Background on Judicial Review
  • ArtIII.S1.3  Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
    
    Read on.......

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-1/

 

Only SCOTUS has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. They can do so by vote or by allowing Appeal Court rulings to stand.

 

District judges are not vested with that power. Hence, Justice Thomas wants and end to judicial activism. 

 

All sane Americans should want that. 

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

That is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for. Trump was nearly a political prisoner. How pathetic

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

8 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

 

Those convictions will.never survive an appeal. No chance. 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Those are misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations had already expired. 

 

If you even count money that was paid to an attorney being recorded as a legal expense as a crime at all.

 

Try again.  Use small words so we simpletons can understand.

 

It's difficult to explain to someone who thinks a word of three letters is too big.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's difficult to explain to someone who thinks a word of three letters is too big.

 

There it is again.  You don't have an argument, so you resort to an insult.  Lefty playbook page 1 according to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.  It's in his great book Loserthink.  In his book, what character do you think you'd play?  Give you a hint.  Starts with L.  And it's not Lacessit.

 

38 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Drivel. But pleasing to think you put a lot of effort into that utter waste of space. 

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

There it is again.  You don't have an argument, so you resort to an insult.  Lefty playbook page 1 according to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.  It's in his great book Loserthink.  In his book, what character do you think you'd play?  Give you a hint.  Starts with L.  And it's not Lacessit.

 

I am not involved in the argument you are having with another poster. However, if you insist with leading with your chin, don't expect people to pass up the opportunity.

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am not involved in the argument you are having with another poster. However, if you insist with leading with your chin, don't expect people to pass up the opportunity.

 

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

IIRC it's called circular argument, or begging the question. It's drivel because he says so, without advancing any proof.

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Ah, so this is what we’re doing now? For lack of a logical response, theblether’s projecting his own blether (nonsense) onto others –– Oh, the irony.

 

Drivel. I indicate the thoughts of the longest serving SCOTUS Justice and you say I'm projecting. 

 

I am projecting nothing. You are embarrassing yourself. Dunning Kruger strikes again 

8 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Drivel. I indicate the thoughts of the longest serving SCOTUS Justice and you say I'm projecting. 

 

I am projecting nothing. You are embarrassing yourself. Dunning Kruger strikes again 

A couple of your favorite phrases in your post, applied when you have nothing cogent in rebuttal.

 

One of the features of propaganda is the use of emotionally loaded language.

12 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Only SCOTUS has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. They can do so by vote or by allowing Appeal Court rulings to stand.

 

District judges are not vested with that power. Hence, Justice Thomas wants and end to judicial activism. 

 

All sane Americans should want that. 

Why didn't i hear you about this during the blatent judge shopping against the previous administration?

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

You might want to check the contents of what you're boiling in that pot. 

"The lawsuit argues that the president is violating the US Constitution and federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency. "Not a single one of defendants' actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization," it says.

"And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency.""

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6701gl60o

Your use of the BBC to explain US constitutional law explains why your posts are usually nonsense. Your quote is an allegation made by someone and not a statement of what the law is.

 

 

13 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

Adolfs goals were Socialist

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Read the Judge/jury statements from his guilty trial!

Translation: I dont know

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your use of the BBC to explain US constitutional law explains why your posts are usually nonsense. Your quote is an allegation made by someone and not a statement of what the law is.

 

 

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You have your "pathetic" pistol pointed in the wrong direction.  You're the one that just made an astonishing claim with the only evidence being your low opinion of those who disagree with your political stance.  No wonder the MAGAns have been referred to as a "basket of deplorables".

If you think the Trump convictions will survive an appeal, you are ignorant of the law. So just continue your Socialist flaming of the decent hard working Americans who voted for Trump to fix the fup you Socialists have made of the world.

 

Us Trump supporters are getting what we want from OUR government. Sucks to be you, in your obsessed, deranged misery.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

You want to brief the issue then? Lets go. You are the propenent of the proposition, show us the cases, like an American lawyer would. 

 

You do know what the issue is, right?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

A direct quote from a brief by one side does not equal a statement of the law of the case. Sorry you dont know how the Courts work in the USA

Just now, Yagoda said:

You want to brief the issue then? Lets go. You are the propenent of the proposition, show us the cases, like an American lawyer would. 

 

You do know what the issue is, right?

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC  was valid.  It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing. 

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC  was valid.  It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing. 

Guess that means you are too scared to debate US law with a real US citizen. 

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Guess that means you are too scared to debate US law with a real US citizen. 

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

14 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

AH had precisely those goals, but for Germans. Not very knowledgeable about history, are you?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

IM not the proponent of any thing here, your post made a claim and you cant support it. Just so you know, the way it works would be:

 

Assertion: You make a claim

Facts: You support the claim

Law: that supports your claim.

 

You just puke out whatever lefty source google gives you first.  Try reading some law or at least, both briefs submitted by the parties.

 

You may want to study Myers vs US, 272 US 52 (1926). 

8 minutes ago, gargamon said:

AH had precisely those goals, but for Germans. Not very knowledgeable about history, are you?

His goals were Socialist, hence: National Socialism. Far more comparable to todays Democratic Party.

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

IM not the proponent of any thing here, your post made a claim and you cant support it. Just so you know, the way it works would be:

 

Assertion: You make a claim

Facts: You support the claim

Law: that supports your claim.

 

You just puke out whatever lefty source google gives you first.  Try reading some law or at least, both briefs submitted by the parties.

 

You may want to study Myers vs US, 272 US 52 (1926). 

I wonder what garbage dump of a website you got that piece of case law from. Myers is about the right of the President to remove appointed officials. That is not the issue in the USAID case. Clearly, you don't have a clue what constitutes relevant case law.