What you mean like tossing out some bullshit "shadow scheme involving Ukraine Mobsters".nope.. 2 Dudes trying to flee, arrested at Dulles. Guiliani meeting with Cats since last Winter. his own testimony on Laura Ingram that the State Department asked him..
Pure speculation still. Originally Posted by eccielover
yeah, Trump now thinks the Ukraine is responsible, not Russia, in the election meddling.. no evidence. just looks like one in a long string of concessions to Putin. Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Hedonist,
Are you serious? Why would President Trump even need any help defeating Joe Biden? What you're asking the president to do is ignore corruption just because Joe Biden in a politician. Don't you understand that is the SWAMP and what President Trump has promised to eliminate. What you're forgetting is that Trump also wants interference in our elections investigated which every US citizen should support. It is in our national interest to have Ukraine investigate interference in our election and if holding up money to force them to do so is perfectly legal and reasonable.
Whether it's a democrat or republican they will nominate justices based on their own criteria.
Duh!
What you're referring to is "packing the court" which is something entirely different. Packing the court is increasing the number of justices then filling those seats immediately with your selections. This is something democrats are advocating very strongly for in an attempt to counter a right leaning Trump court. Originally Posted by Yachtmaster
If you want to know the definition of Judicial Activism and the exact opposite of "literalism" or "original intent", how about this quote from Sotomayor on the Dreamers case before the SC, "That outcome would "destroy lives," declared Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one the court's liberals who repeatedly suggested the administration has not adequately justified its decision to end the seven-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Nor has it taken sufficient account of the personal, economic and social disruption that might result, they said.
See, I thought that the job of a SC Justice was to interpret the written words in the Constitution not make up words that are not found in the Constitution. What the Justices are supposed to be deciding IMHO, is to decide whether what Obama did was "make law" something he repeatedly told his Hispanic audiences that he could not do as President. I think his exact quote was "there are things that a President simply can't do", until he decided that he could. And if Obama can make a new law with an Executive Decision, surely a new President can undue that Executive Decision, right? Well, not if the new President is Donald Trump it would seem.
Now for the record, I'm not opposed to letting the Dreamers stay and someday even have the right to vote but not any time soon. What I am for no matter who it helps or hurts, is a literal interpretation of the words in the Constitution. If it says that a President may not make new law because that is reserved for the Legislature, then that's the way it works for any President regardless of party.
What does the "outcome" of their decision have to do with whether the ruling is found in the Constitution or isn't? If the Legislature wants the Dreamers to stay, they can easily make that law. If they can't, it is no concern or business of the Supreme Court IMHO.
The lower courts are saying that Trump can't justify his decision to rescind the Obama EO. Can't justify? Why would you have to justify rescinding an illegal EO? Hey Justices, the only thing you have to decide is whether the Obama order was legal or not. Everything else will work it's way out from there.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever