Pages

Monday, February 13, 2017

Phantom powers replaced with phantom checks...

So for the lion's share of eight years, the left, the media, and the Democratic Party worked overtime in an attempt to expand the powers of the executive branch. There is little question that if your progressive movement would have had it's way, they would have crowned Obama King, and done away with the checks and balances nonsense.

Liberals cheer President Obama's pen and phone comment!

Now, the same people who demanded for eight years that the constitution, the voters will, the congress, and the courts were simply silly roadblocks preventing the ultimate power of the Presidency have done a drastic about face. It's now become clear that those phantom powers of the Presidency have conveniently disappeared and been replaced by new phantom "checks" on that same office.

Not that this sort of change in attitude isn't somewhat typical political behavior, or that historically it's exclusive to this particular generation of liberals. It's just that it's never been quite so obvious, quite so transparently hypocritical, and quite so blatantly illogical in the manner in which it has been argued.

Let's start with the basic concept that the separation of powers provides the legislative branch with the relatively exclusive powers to create domestic laws and statutes, while providing the executive branch with relatively exclusive powers to act on national security and foreign policy issues. Tell me how it is possible to support the claim four years ago that the President has the power to act on legislative issues if Congress refuses to do so.... but claim today that the President does not have the power to actually specifically follow explicit statutory laws regarding national security issues?

A better way to answer this question would be to reverse the situation. Would the same progressives argue that Donald Trump has the authority today to use a pen and a phone to create legislative orders if congress fails to do what he wants them to do. Should he be allowed by executive fiat to simply order tax cuts or maybe write an executive order that repeals Obamacare simply because Congress might not otherwise have the votes to pass the legislation?

Assume President Obama had made a decision, based on the information gathered by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Director of Homeland Security, and the various military brass to write an order restricting travel from a particular area of the world deemed dangerous. Assume he used existing statutory legislation to guide him, had the order written by immigration lawyers, reviewed by the NSA, Homeland Security, and the Office of legal council from the DOJ before rolling it out. How many people would have questioned President Obama and his decision? The answer (of course) is one of historical reality. He did in fact restrict travel during his tenure, and exactly zero people questioned his authority to do so.

The reality here is one that the left just doesn't want to accept. Donald Trump is as much President as Barack Obama was. Trump has the same Presidential powers and the same Presidential limitations as Obama did. An attack on Donald Trump's powers is simply an attack on the powers of the Presidency and executive branch itself.

Personally, I am fine with the abrupt halt in the expansion of Presidential powers. Everything Donald Trump gets fought on, ultimately restricts executive powers well into the future. Long term, we are looking at it becoming harder and harder for Democrats to garner congressional powers. Thirty red states and twenty blue states provides a built in GOP Senate advantage, and consolidation of liberal voters into dense urban areas provide a similar House advantage for Republicans. Considering the USSC could ultimately end up 5-4 or even 6-3 conservative by the time Trump leaves office, not to mention he will be appointing a bus load of federal justices without any chance of filibuster... it would seem that the other two branches of the Government may end up being conservative for the foreseeable future. Creating more "checks" on the Presidency would seem to be a bad long term political move for the left, considering the Presidency is still their best hope of getting their foot in the door.

But then again, when it comes to politics... most people can't see anything other than what's in the news today. Angry mobs filled with hatred and loathing are not exactly strategic thinkers.

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

And now word is leaking that all these protests are just a little too organized tk be grass roots, abd if fact, they're being coordinated by tbe community organizer himself thru not for profit orgs. If true, this would set a new precedent for former Presidents sabotaging a current admin, and a new low in classless ness. I hope it isn't true, but knowing Obama, it probably is.

rrb said...

I hope it isn't true, but knowing Obama, it probably is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


OFA; 0linsky's Fucking Assholes are on the march:


In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy, it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/

opie said...

What a crock of crap.....rat....I hope it is true since that will cause your collective heads to explode. Trump doesn't need help with such stars as flynn and prince rebus running things.....BTW. wonder whose opinion the post used for that editorial. LOL

opie said...

Hours worked don't mean crap, Sean. I know a lot of hard working failures......look around here as an example. LOL

Steve Miller works 18 hour days serving the country and the @POTUS What do you do? Basically talk to yourself & @morningmika Nobody watches! https://twitter.com/joen

Sean Hannity , the high school drop out.....LOLOLOL

opie said...

Anyone have visual proof of voters being bussed into NH to illegally vote? I bet rat and CH believe it while all Miller did was flap his lips like loretta and her spam. LOLOL

Loretta Russo said...

Once a gypsy crack head, always a gypsy crack head - lusting after his own daughter.

opie said...

Loretta Russo said...
Once a gypsy crack head, always a gypsy crack head

Wow, I'm shaking in my boots, Loretta....Maybe you can send your flossing marine back to my house in Ga. Just remember, there are guns in the house....LOL. BTW, don't you have one of your spawn living in Boston. I'm sure he would have seen the coverage of buss loads of voters emigrating to NH to vote illegally. But knowing you, he is probably a believer like you.. LOLOLO

opie said...

I forgot to add this, sweet loretta......ESAD. LOL

C.H. Truth said...

Sean Hannity , the high school drop out.....LOLOLOL

College drop out, actually. I suppose had he graduated from college he would be making more than the 29 million a year that he currently does?

Which is likely approximately 28.97 million more than you earn.

Loretta Russo said...

"OFA; 0linsky's Fucking Assholes are on the march:"

Once a two-bit community organizer, always a two-bit community organizer.

Myballs said...

Bill Gates and Michael Dell also dropped out of college.

Loretta Russo said...

:Which is likely approximately 28.97 million more than you earn."

Gypsies can't steal much these days.

Roger Amick said...

"An attack on Donald Trump's powers is simply an attack on the powers of the Presidency and executive branch itself."

To a point. But as I've been saying, he is seriously considering to ignore the ruling by the judicial branch of the Constitution. Would you support him if he does that?

I'm afraid that you would. I know at least three of the regulars would. The Coldheartedtruth would be no longer

Commonsense said...

But as I've been saying, he is seriously considering to ignore the ruling by the judicial branch of the Constitution. Would you support him if he does that?

And what if the ruling itself is extra-constitutional?

If a judge rules that he's supreme leader are we supposed to follow it?

rrb said...

And what if the ruling itself is extra-constitutional?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and there's the rub. when 0linsky issued the exact same order for the exact same seven countries we didn't hear a peep out of the left at large or the liberals in the judiciary in particular.

this is because it's trump, and only because it's trump.

if we were living under the president cankles regime we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

it's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

C.H. Truth said...

To a point. But as I've been saying, he is seriously considering to ignore the ruling by the judicial branch of the Constitution. Would you support him if he does that?

There no degrees here Roger. Your T.D.S. fogs the reality for you and what demands that you see a legal showdown over an executive travel ban to be about Trump. Trump. Trump. More Trump. Trump. Trump.

Again. Trump didn't write this ban. Neither did Bannon or any of the other boogie men that T.D.S. requires you to believe exists in the dark closets. Trump. Trump. Trump. The ban was written by GOP congressional aides who happen to be immigration attorneys, vetted by legal teams in the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and the National Security Agency. Trump. Trump. Trump and more Trump.

So this isn't about Trump, or Trump, or Trump.

It's about whether National Security decisions are going to continue to be made by the executive branch (who has the FBI, NSA, CIA, Dept Homeland Security, and all of your Military branches answering to it)... or if every executive branch decision will now be arbitrated by federal Justices who come armed with Washington Post stories and fake facts about how there are no know security threats to justify the actions.... because lord forbid some tech Company in Seattle is worried that their 1/2 price foreign labor pool might be interrupted.

Roger Amick said...

I knew it.
He would be justified no matter what he does.

There is only one branch of the government has the power to decide whether or not a ruling by a district court is "extra Constitutional" a phrase that doesn't exist, but if the Supreme Court finds the ruling of the lower court to be unconstitutional, it is mute.

The issue I raised you ignored, and danced around the issue of the President, through his spokesman he is seriously considering to defy any court ruling.

Let me guess, you would stand beside him.

Roger Amick said...

My comment above applies to both of you Trumpism clowns.

C.H. Truth said...

Also Roger...

The administration has been complying with every order on this. The fact that there is "confusion" at airlines and airports is based on the fact that you have been seeing competing legal decisions from different parts of the country and that nobody quite knows for sure what this particular Washington State Justice did and didn't demand be stopped.

That's the inherent problem with the left taking "everything they disagree with" to court. The jumbled system of competing decisions that ultimately are never quite resolved till they get to the USSC causes problems all over the place. Quite frankly, because it was likely never the "intent" to continue to litigate every law and executive action in court.

On the flip side, the previous administration had been called out for lying to several Justices regarding the immigration policy that Obama was trying to "expand" (which btw had nothing to do with national security - but was argued non-the-less by the Obama team the President had broad powers when it came to immigration)... and that they actually started the process when in fact they were told not to by the Federal Justice.

So ask yourself this question. Why was it not a big deal for you when the Obama Administration was basically caught red handed not complying with a Federal Court order, but you get all bent out of shape over some "rumor" that the Trump administration "is thinking about" not complying.

You don't have an issue with Obama actually not complying. But you take issue with Trump complying (because you are afraid that he might change his mind). Trump Derangement Syndrome at it's finest.

Roger Amick said...

That folks... Would trigger a Constitutional crises of historical proportions.

If the President acts extra Constitutionality. And, yes you would be by his side.

Say hello to a dictatorship. Seig Heil

rrb said...

The issue I raised you ignored, and danced around the issue of the President, through his spokesman he is seriously considering to defy any court ruling.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

first of all, most everything you write is ripe for ignoring. asshattery works like that.

second, your insistence that trump will "defy" the court ruling is pure TDS bullshit.

has it occurred to you that rather than defy, trump may appeal the ruling with a new EO, more clearly defined, and containing the evidence counter to the courts claims - that no one from one of the countries in question have committed acts of terrorism or attacked?

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration's immigration ban.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-convicted-of-terrorism-from-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries/article/2614582


the court wrongly stated that no one from those 7 countries committed acts of terror.

well, they were only off by 72.


so to address your TDS question - no, trump will not defy the order. he'll appeal.

and win.

Roger Amick said...

Using the actions by a previous President, is a song and dance around a Constitutional crises, to express your love for President Donald Tweeter Trump©.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
That folks... Would trigger a Constitutional crises of historical proportions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL.

captain pen and phone did whatever the fuck he wanted, and there were no cries of constitutional crises.

unclutch the pearls and drag your ass off the fainting couch cupcake.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
Using the actions by a previous President...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

well, it worked for 0linsky for eight years.

hypocrisy much?

Roger Amick said...

A county Republican leader in the Upper Peninsula is under fire for seeming to suggest in his social media posts there should be a Kent State type of crackdown on violent protests like the one that erupted at a university in California last week.

He later apologized.

The racist rodent bastard, would welcome it. Especially if a Beaner was one of the casualties.

rrb said...



sorry alky, but i disagree with the UP idiot.

shitshows like berzerkely should not be stopped, they should be celebrated, highlighted, and widely covered by the media. i consider every one of those, the more riotous the better, to be "re-elect trump" rallies.

you want more trump?

berzerkely is how you get more trump.

keep 'em coming. but please... tell them to wear their snatch hats next time.

we've always known liberals are pussies. it's nice that they finally got around to getting an official uniform.





C.H. Truth said...

Using the actions by a previous President, is a song and dance around a Constitutional crises, to express your love for President Donald Tweeter Trump

Roger... with all due respect.

There are no actual "actions" from Trump defying a court order.
There were actual "actions" from Obama defying a court order.

So if you believe that a President defying court orders would create some sort of constitutional crisis, where was that crisis when Obama and his team quietly continued with his order, in spite of a Justice demanding it be put on hold?


If you are bound and determined to judge Trump on something he "hasn't actually done"-- you just might be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

rrb said...

So ask yourself this question. Why was it not a big deal for you when the Obama Administration was basically caught red handed not complying with a Federal Court order, but you get all bent out of shape over some "rumor" that the Trump administration "is thinking about" not complying.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

your answer can be found within the bedrock of liberalism.

rrb said...



hey rog, rather than treating those little liberal college asshats to another kent state, hows about we just throw them all into internment camps for the duration of the trump presidency???

i mean, the last time we put american's in cages like that it was the brainchild of the most heralded liberal president of the last century - FDR.

whattaya say?

rrb said...



WASHINGTON
A California Islamic school wanted to keep an open mind before Donald Trump took office. But less than a month into Trump's presidency, the school rejected $800,000 in federal funds aimed at combatting violent extremism.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article132146279.html#storylink=cpy



now if they really were serious about denouncing extremists within islam, why would they reject some financial assistance?

hmmmmm...


KD, said...

he is seriously considering to ignore the ruling by the judicial branch of the Constitution. Would you support him if he does that?"

Nope, I would expect this President to follow the Laws and continue to go thru the courts.

He may issues many other EO using the power of the law granted exclusively to the President. I believe that law was passed in 1948 and has until today not been challenged when the sitting President used it.

Thanks to former prez obimbo , the executive branch is much stronger, it was ok with you when obimbo did it, you stood idle, but now, you rant.


CA Moonbeam waiting on President Trump to save him, classic liberalism, fuck up expect others to clean up.

KD, HB never failes to Fail said...

What how a idiot attempt to debate.


HB vs the other idiot HB
First HB builds a straw man , straw soaked in gasoline.
"That folks... Would trigger a Constitutional crises of historical proportions. "

Then HB strikes a match and sets his straw man a blaze.

"Using the actions by a previous President, is a song and dance around a Constitutional crises, to express your love for President Donald Tweeter Trump©."

KD, MoonBeam failed to protect the Damn Dam said...

HB, you put to this blog a question , you predicted three of us would support the president IF he acted in an Unconstitutional Manner, however Three of US stated clearly we WOULD NOT SUPPORT this President IF he ever does act Unconstiutionally.

Again, you suck at everything, including but not at all limited to predictions.

Hillary in a Landslide, 360 EV, right?

KD, Capitalism/Trump and Wealth Creation said...

HB, you and your gal pal, Pauline Krugman put money into the US Stock Market in put positions while cheering the futures market dropping on Nov. 9th, 2016.

I know you don't answer questions because your unable to think on your own.

But, those positions lost you a hell of a lot of money.

I however voted with part of my Retirement savings outside of my defined benefit pension and have been rewarded very nicely.

President Trump , since the election has seen an over 2 k rise on the DOW, faster then any other President Ever.

wphamilton said...

It's a little odd to be offering a Federal grant to an Islamic Graduate school to begin with. And a grant from DHS? Seriously?

For what, to help the school discourage terrorism and racist/religious hatred? No, I can't really believe that any US administration would waste $800,000 to help a private religious school to polish its image - there would be DHS strings attached, that's why it was granted and that's why they turned it down. You know that Trump's DHS would be pulling on those strings.

BTW, per admissions information from their website, you can apply if you have any form of faith as long as you are engaged constructively with the islamic community. It seems to me that the DHS money would be far better spent to sponsor ministers of other faiths to gain these credentials, so that they could open inter-faith ministries while having the blessing of this Islamic university, and engage the Islamic community at the street level that way.

rrb said...



More mainstream media mess-ups:

The Muslim Olympian 'detained because of President Trump's travel ban' was detained under Obama

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-trip-all-over-themselves-botching-an-olympians-story-about-being-detained/article/2614645

KD, said...

The Mercury News
Oroville Dam: Feds and state officials ignored warnings 12 years ago"

When management is giving this much time to plan, there is not excuse for failure. 200,000 people put into panic and forced to evacuate.

Gov. Jerry Brown, you should be ashamed of you and your staff.

rrb said...

Oroville Dam: Feds and state officials ignored warnings 12 years ago"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

how long has california been in the death grip of a super-democrat majority?

that could be relevant from a correlation/causation perspective.

rrb said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
It's a little odd to be offering a Federal grant to an Islamic Graduate school to begin with. And a grant from DHS? Seriously?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i hear you, wp. it's safe to assume that a significant number of these facilities are nothing more than radical madrassas', i can't imagine what the trump administration was trying to accomplish by offering them the $$$.

Commonsense said...

It's cut and paste but it's on topic.

Clinton reminds us why we’re lucky she lost the election

Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Thank you for ­reminding America about the importance of Donald Trump’s victory and of the awful consequences if you had won.

Clinton sent out a taunting tweet of “3-0” after the three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously slapped a halt on Trump’s executive order on immigrants and ­refugees.

Her support for the ruling isn’t surprising — Clinton said she was for open borders at one point — but the gutter sniping was telling. The activist judges who based their ruling on their liberal politics instead of the Constitution are the same kind she would appoint to the Supreme Court and all other federal courts if she were in the Oval Office.

KD, Liberals are Funny said...

that could be relevant from a correlation/causation perspective."

It is Socialism is a failed system, so it is perfect for the Fringe Coast Hillary voters.

6 years of drought, plenty of time to plan, inspect, re-enforce and be ready, they failed and at 200,000 people have had to pay the price .

Trump Infrastructure spending, building the wall will be part of the $1 trillion spent over 10 years.

I love it. tweety de, twitty de, de

KD said...

WP, no odder then Obama's NASA out Reach to mooselimbs.


May 16, 2013, to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau. The excerpt, in its entirety, reads:

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

This is the one CS, pure stupidity.






opie said...

: Feds and state officials ignored warnings 12 years ago"

And were sued by various groups to reinforce the earthen spillway.....Let me see, what could be the real problem. MONEY!!!!!!!! Who would pay for it. But, again, the right wing extremists who won't pay for shit decide it is the dem's who caused the problem. You guys are too funny for even this slice of heaven.

opie said...


Which is likely approximately 28.97 million more than you earn.

You and loretta deserve each other with stupid comments like that. Hannity is an ass, just like you CH. His education is supplanted by a glib tongue and puppet comments that really are not insightful or good. But, you like him, I don't especially knowing he is a HS drop out just like densa boy., LOL. BTW, I retired at 62, have 2 pensions, own 2 homes while you are looking to start family 2. How's that working out for your retirement??????? LOL

rrb said...

Let me see, what could be the real problem. MONEY!!!!!!!! Who would pay for it. But, again, the right wing extremists who won't pay for shit decide it is the dem's who caused the problem.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the right wing is powerless in california, d0pie:

State Senate[edit]
Democrats hold a 27-13 supermajority in the 40-member California State Senate. The Democrats have been the majority party in the Senate continuously since 1956.

State Assembly[edit]
Democrats hold a 55-25 supermajority in the 80-seat California State Assembly. The Democrats have been the majority party in the Assembly continuously since 1996.

Mayoral offices[edit]
Some of the state's major cities have Democratic mayors. As of 2015, Democrats control the mayor's offices in six of California's ten largest cities:

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



democrats run the fucking joint, and have for quite a while, so any collapse of infrastructure can be laid solely at their feet.

Roger Amick said...


So if you believe that a President defying court orders would create some sort of constitutional crisis, where was that crisis when Obama and his team quietly continued with his order, in spite of a Justice demanding it be put on hold?

Your claim isn't correct.

I didn't say that the President has defied the court order.

I clearly stated that the President and his spokesman, is seriously considering to ignore the courts.


White House Policy Advisor Stephen Miller

"OUR OPPONENTS, THE MEDIA AND THE WHOLE WORLD WILL SOON SEE AS WE BEGIN TO TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS, THAT THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED."

He does not have the ability to defy the courts.

Congressman Chris Collins (R) I just heard him say that the President has absolute authority to defend the country, no matter what the courts or congress say.

Do you agree?

Indy Voter said...

Phantom checks? You mean like the ones Trump's contractors frequently receive?

opie said...

the right wing is powerless in california, d0pie:

Really Rat? You wouldn't be making crap up again like warrants out for the Devon protestors, right???? Since you claim D's do nothing but spend, who could possibly have stopped the dam project? Again, the problem was money,,,,,,,,nothing else. And what side abhors paying for things? Try again rat, this is fun. LOL

KD, CA Dam problen Legal Res. Not Tax Enuff, so said Opium said...

Opium, you point is that they had 12 years to deal with the dam, failed and that failure was because CA does not have enough money, ok, I am good with that.

So California is now broke both morally and economically. Opium , Really thanks .

KD, Dow Rockets on Trump Bump said...

Anonymous Indy Voter said...
Phantom checks? You mean like the ones Trump's contractors frequently receive.



LOL, it did not work during the Election Madam Indy.

Get over it, move on and attempt to not navel gaze.

KD, Broke CA said...

who could possibly have stopped the dam project?"

got me, who?

Let me see, those like MoonBeam are not in control of the Budget in CA, IF not him and his majority House and Senate, you have to believe they defer the CA Budget to the few Republicans in those to chambers and Moonbeam rubber stamps it.

Wild how your polluted mind malfunctions.

KD, CA loves them Interlopers said...

Washington, D.C., June 19, 2014: A new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that providing education, health care, law enforcement, and social and government services to illegal aliens and their dependents costs Californians $25.3 billion per year according to FAIR's report The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on California Taxpayers. The state's 3 million illegal aliens and their 1.1 million U.S.–born children cost the average California household — headed by a U.S. citizen — $2,370 annually"

Just saying money pissed away on illegals.

Commonsense said...

The Ninth Circuit’s Stay On Trump’s Immigration Order Is Legal Garbage
It’s clear the judges went through the exercise of writing an opinion so they could get to the outcome they wanted. The problem is, the outcome they wanted is, legally speaking, wrong.


The right outcome is pretty simple, and doesn’t take 29 pages to extrapolate. The analysis should have gone something like this:

“It’s clear that Congress has given the president significant powers to exclude foreigners from immigrating to the United States when he believes such immigration would be detrimental to the national interest. This law is legal, and has been used by presidents for the last 65 years. President Trump made the determination that citizens from seven different countries that have sponsored terrorism worldwide pose a security concern to the United States and its citizens. The appropriate legal standard shows we must give President Trump’s decision substantial deference. Reviewing President Trump’s actions with substantial deference, it is clear that the order is legal, valid, and meant to protect the United States and its citizens from harm.”

The fact the analysis didn’t go that route and needed 29 pages to misspeak, contradict, and misinterpret its way to an improper decision that puts us all at risk, should give us all pause. You want to know what’s even lousier? As a per curiam order, none of the three judges even had the courage to sign his or her name.


This order is an egregious abuse of judicial power. If there was any political will, these judges should be impeached.

Of course some people like Roger prefers rule by judges. Just as long as they're the judges he prefers.

I can guess what he would argue when it is judges he doesn't prefer.

His intellectual dishonesty would be amusing if it wasn't so tedious.

Roger Amick said...

The Federalist is a conservative web site. The lawyers who post there are right wing ideological conservative lawyers.

If I posted something from the Harvard university law school, and they are some of the most respected in the United States you would laugh it off. One of them just finished two terms as the President of the United States.

Roger Amick said...

I prefer our constitution. It has three branches of government. You are proposing a dictatorship, where the President can do anything he wants, if he says that it's in the the national security interest.

If President Hillary Clinton claimed that the President could ignore a court order, in the national interest, we could hear your head explode from a mile away.

Loretta Russo said...

Obama DID ignore a court order drunkard.

wphamilton said...

rrb, re "i can't imagine what the trump administration was trying to accomplish by offering them the $$$."

The grant offer was from the Obama administration, but evidently hadn't yet been withdrawn by Trump. I doubt that he even knew about it.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger... at least you are being honest about the fact that what you write is "pants on fire".

Certainly your continued argument that Trump is ignoring a court order, when in fact he is complying with it... qualifies you for that ranking.

C.H. Truth said...

I prefer our constitution. It has three branches of government. You are proposing a dictatorship, where the President can do anything he wants, if he says that it's in the the national security interest.

Actually Roger... someone has to have the ultimate authority in every area.

The legislative branch will have ultimate authority to create laws (within the boundaries of the constitution). The Executive branch has the ultimate authority in National Security and foreign policy issues (within the boundaries of the constitution).

It would appear that you believe that such responsibility and authority should not be entrusted to either branch? That all responsibility and authority should ultimately be provided to the Judicial branch as a "check" on all matters of policy.

As stated in an earlier post, that would ultimately make the USSC an unelected Oligarchy with life time appointments. Be careful what you wish for, as that Oligarchy may not be in line with how you feel the country should be run, and nobody in the country would have any real means to do anything about it (lifetime appointments).

Roger Amick said...

Marbery v Madison spelling?
But the Supreme Court has an absolute authority on the Constitutionality on every law and executive order. It can be overturned by constitutional amendment.
You obviously failed civics class.

Indy Voter said...

You might want to read Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, C.H.

C.H. Truth said...

Yes Roger... a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of the States to agree is a very convenient "check" of the Judiciary.


Again, nobody is suggesting that either Congress or the President is allowed to create unconstitutional laws or executive orders... or that the courts do not have the authority to determine constitutionality.

But again, keep in mind that arguing that a law or policy is unwarranted or something you don't agree with... does not make it unconstitutional. The Constitution is a fairly limited document, with a finite amount of rules to follow. The moment you allow the Judicial branch to arbitrate policy disputes (rather than a limited role of determining whether the policy in place is within the predetermined limits of the constitution) then you move outside of the separation of powers, and into allowing one "Super Branch" to oversee all things.

Commonsense said...

If I posted something from the Harvard university law school, and they are some of the most respected in the United States you would laugh it off.

Oh please; you quote Lawrence Tribe when it suits you and then you ignore him when his opinions are inconvenient to you.

And once again you descend into the ad hominem because you're too intellectually lazy or incompetent to make a counter argument and too immature to just let it go.

Go back to ranting on the blog you destroyed.

rrb said...

Since you claim D's do nothing but spend, who could possibly have stopped the dam project?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

not the republicans, that's for sure. democrats probably had the money earmarked for something else. entitlements or sanctuary nonsense for illegal criminal beaners.

but thanks for at least acknowledging that the GOP in california is completely powerless.

rrb said...

If President Hillary Clinton claimed that the President could ignore a court order, in the national interest, we could hear your head explode from a mile away.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and as i've been saying since this shitshow began, if hillary had issued the exact same EO on the exact same 7 countries, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

caliphate4vr said...

not the republicans, that's for sure. democrats probably had the money earmarked for something else. entitlements or sanctuary nonsense for illegal criminal beaners.

but thanks for at least acknowledging that the GOP in california is completely powerless.


Maybe a high speed train to no where?

rrb said...

Maybe a high speed train to no where?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yeah, at cost overruns currently in the ten$ of billion$ of dollar$. add to that the insolvency of the public sector employee pensions and you know all you need to know as to why cal-exit never happens. moonbeam will need a fed bailout at some point.

california is such a beautiful state and is the poster child which illustrates that everything a liberal touches turns to shit.



brilliant.

KD, said...

Opium told us proudly that the Problem was not enough Money, facts are never on his side.


"A list of $100 billion of "key" infrastructure projects that California Gov. Jerry Brown's office targeted this month for investment statewide includes raising Folsom Dam to improve flood protection but doesn't specifically mention Oroville Dam." Cnbc

So with $100 Billion going out, not enough to repair this dam.

Money is not the issue. Failed Management is.

KD, Alky makes up US Constitution said...

But the Supreme Court has an absolute authority on the Constitutionality on every law and executive order." UCLA Barbie

Actually Alky your wrong.

opie said...

So with $100 Billion going out, not enough to repair this dam.

Nothing but abject BS and speculation on your part. BTW....who as governor when the problems were originally pointed out???? And who requests the money for projects in Ca???? Was the spillway breaking when the latest budget was made???? Keep trying goat breath and dam another river on your property!!! LOL

Roger Amick said...

For our esteemed host.

Go to Article III, Section 3
Section 2 - The Text
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—[between a State and Citizens of another State;-]8 between citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;—and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]9

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

8. Modified by Amendment XI.

9. Modified by Amendment XI.

Section 2 - The Meaning
The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government.

In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted Article III and Article VI to give the federal courts final say over the meaning of the federal Constitution and federal laws and the power to order state and federal officials to comply with its rulings. The federal courts can make decisions only on cases that are brought to them by a person who is actually affected by the law. Federal courts are not allowed to create cases on their own, even if they believe a law is unconstitutional, nor are they allowed to rule on hypothetical scenarios.

Almost all federal cases start in federal district courts, where motions are decided and trials held. The cases are then heard on appeal by the federal courts of appeal and then by the Supreme Court if four justices of the nine-member court decide to hear the case. Congress can limit the power of the appeals courts by changing the rules about which cases can be appealed. State cases that involve an issue of federal law can also be heard by the Supreme Court after the highest court in the state rules (or refuses to rule) in the case. The Supreme Court accepts only a small number of cases for review, typically around 80 cases each year. In a small number of lawsuits — those involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, or where a state is a party — the Supreme Court is the first court to hear the case.

The federal courts also have final say over guilt or innocence in federal criminal cases. A defendant in a criminal case, except impeachment, has a right to have his or her case heard by a jury in the state where the crime occurred.

Roger Amick said...

Go to Article III, Section 3
Section 2 - The Text
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—[between a State and Citizens of another State;-]8 between citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;—and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]9

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

8. Modified by Amendment XI.

9. Modified by Amendment XI.

Section 2 - The Meaning
The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government.

In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted Article III and Article VI to give the federal courts final say over the meaning of the federal Constitution and federal laws and the power to order state and federal officials to comply with its rulings. The federal courts can make decisions only on cases that are brought to them by a person who is actually affected by the law. Federal courts are not allowed to create cases on their own, even if they believe a law is unconstitutional, nor are they allowed to rule on hypothetical scenarios.

Almost all federal cases start in federal district courts, where motions are decided and trials held. The cases are then heard on appeal by the federal courts of appeal and then by the Supreme Court if four justices of the nine-member court decide to hear the case. Congress can limit the power of the appeals courts by changing the rules about which cases can be appealed. State cases that involve an issue of federal law can also be heard by the Supreme Court after the highest court in the state rules (or refuses to rule) in the case. The Supreme Court accepts only a small number of cases for review, typically around 80 cases each year. In a small number of lawsuits — those involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, or where a state is a party — the Supreme Court is the first court to hear the case.

The federal courts also have final say over guilt or innocence in federal criminal cases. A defendant in a criminal case, except impeachment, has a right to have his or her case heard by a jury in the state where the crime occurred.