How much damage are activist judges doing to the democratic party and the courts themselves?

[Kidlicious]

Feel free to explain how filling his cabinet with super rich corporate executives with financial ties to Russia counts as 'draining the swamp'.

Not the EU. If you don't know what the Swamp is do research.

[kentonio]

Not the EU. If you don't know what the Swamp is do research.

Well so far the 'swamp' seems to include scientists, experts, diplomats, any and all Democrats and anyone who doesn't think poor people should die of easily treatable illnesses or starvation. Am I missing anyone out?

[Kidlicious]

Anti-Americans.

[Broken_Erika]

Ah yes. The hated Anti-Nationals.

[BeBMan]

I'm just reading comments made in public by an activist FBI director. Unbelievable!!!

[Berzerker]

Feel free to explain how filling his cabinet with super rich corporate executives with financial ties to Russia counts as 'draining the swamp'.

the WH is the drain

[Broken_Erika]

Draining the swamp and keeping the mud, and the crap that was floating on top. He needs a good base for when he re-fills the swamp.

[rah]

He meant to say drain the fountain, so he could scoop out all the change at the bottom.

[Berzerker]

Why do you think the liberals are doing this Berz. It can't be on principles. They don't have any. I can't figure out their game plan. Are they just all butt hurt little children?

obstructionism is the general rule except when both parties make a profit, but the problem is the nature of this war - its 'perpetual' and the courts are reluctant to expand the power of the prez as if we were fighting for our very existence. I want the courts to be a check, they went awol in the drug war and let the politicians ignore the constitutional limits on their power. I'm sure FDR didn't have to deal much with obstructionist courts when managing wwii, they even let him imprison americans of japanese descent.

[Kidlicious]

obstructionism is the general rule except when both parties make a profit, but the problem is the nature of this war - its 'perpetual' and the courts are reluctant to expand the power of the prez as if we were fighting for our very existence. I want the courts to be a check, they went awol in the drug war and let the politicians ignore the constitutional limits on their power. I'm sure FDR didn't have to deal much with obstructionist courts when managing wwii, they even let him imprison americans of japanese descent.

If Trump is going to win in the end how does this help them? Judges aren't supposed to make laws. Everyone knows that. This is lawlessness. So how does it pay off?

[Berzerker]

What law did the judge make? This is the process required by our laws, had the judge ruled in Trump's favor the plaintiff would appeal up the chain. I just happen to think the SCOTUS will continue expanding executive power as is the practice during 'wars'. Judges are stuck in the position of deciding what is or isn't needed to wage these wars, both foreign and domestic. Actually, your drug war is a big reason why we have judges in that position. The whole effing reason for the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was the impolite practice of no-knock raids and seized property by the King's troops, but we do it now because its a "war against drugs".

[Kidlicious]

What law did the judge make? This is the process required by our laws, had the judge ruled in Trump's favor the plaintiff would appeal up the chain. I just happen to think the SCOTUS will continue expanding executive power as is the practice during 'wars'. Judges are stuck in the position of deciding what is or isn't needed to wage these wars, both foreign and domestic. Actually, your drug war is a big reason why we have judges in that position. The whole effing reason for the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was the impolite practice of no-knock raids and seized property by the King's troops, but we do it now because its a "war against drugs".

If you are comparing the war on drugs to the war on terrorism I fail to see the connection unless you mean to say that citizens should have the right to request for anyone to immigrate to the country. That's basically the law that this judge created, and it certainly wasn't the law before. As you mentioned, the president has the right to restrict immigration of anyone who HE judges to be a threat to the country. It is NOT the decision of judges.

[loinburger]

Do you believe that the President should obey the Constitution?

[Berzerker]

If you are comparing the war on drugs to the war on terrorism I fail to see the connection unless you mean to say that citizens should have the right to request for anyone to immigrate to the country. That's basically the law that this judge created, and it certainly wasn't the law before. As you mentioned, the president has the right to restrict immigration of anyone who HE judges to be a threat to the country. It is NOT the decision of judges.

Both wars are open doors to politicians to exceed the constitution - thats why we have the prolific practice of no-knock raids, seized (stolen) property and widespread spying, and your party is even more guilty than the Dems... But the judge didn't pretend to write immigration law - the judge is undoubtedly trying to apply the laws written by Congress that the prez' executive order conflicts with... This war on terror is ill-defined, there are no borders, no one to declare war on, yet we're at war. Judges are left deciding how far the prez should be allowed to go.

[Kidlicious]

Do you believe that the President should obey the Constitution?

Everyone should