Odds on Trump's Impeachment

Actually, it was just short of a defeat for the administration. The Supreme Court upheld the bulk of the injunction. It stays in place with regard to any immigrant with significant connections to the U.S. included every named Plaintiff in the two suits. The Court also gave broad guidance on extending the injunction to others. The Supreme Court also added a requirement that the parties brief the mootness issue, which I noted earlier is the way that the Court can duck the broader, and to Republican justices important issue of expanding executive authority at the expense of Congress, without putting their seal of approval on Trump's odious and bigoted order. Had Trump not run if fucking mother and completely fucked up the implementation of not one, but two EO's he might have had a good shot at getting his actions affirmed. But he'd rather be the center of attention and spout bigoted lies than actually quietly accomplish something. Finally, it appears that Trump has, at best, three votes on the Court for affirming the entire EO. He lost Kennedy and the Chief Justice on overturning the entire injunction. Frankly, I expected that to be 5-4, not 6-3. Roberts siding with the Democrats was somewhat unexpected. But he may well be very, very offended by Trump's bigotry. I also saw speculation that Gorsuch may also jump ship to the majority in light of a few things he's done since joining the Court, particularly his concurrence today in the Hicks v. U.S. case. He went out of his way to criticize the government in that case because, surprisingly, he has a firm sense of right and wrong.

Actually, it was just short of a defeat for the administration. The Supreme Court upheld the bulk of the injunction. It stays in place with regard to any immigrant with significant connections to the U.S. included every named Plaintiff in the two suits.. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

As you know this ruling is only on the injunction, the base arguments of the case will be heard in October. You are the only one I have heard that feels that this ruling is a "just short of a defeat" for the administration.

"The court's nine justices granted "the government's applications to stay the injunctions…with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." It also allowed the suspension of all refugee arrivals for 120 days to go ahead on the same basis.The court ruled that the decision of lower courts was too broad in including those with no connection to people already in the U.S.
"Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the ruling said."


Note the lack of a religious component in their ruling, which appeared to be the basis of your argument.

Where did you get this little piece of geniusness from? Originally Posted by texassapper

you would have to click on that link i provided and READ the information to actually understand. maybe for you to comprehend, it might be asking alot but give it a shot.

So please explain how you manage to have the above items without a lot of money thrown at them? Seems to me money is king here. DO YOU PAY YOUR TAXES? duh

Also explain please how the air in and above the USA is static and never goes anywhere. HAVE YOU SEEN THE AMOUNT OF CARBON SPEWING FROM THOSE COAL STACKS?

If clean drinking water is a right, and providing it is a simple act of decency HAVE YOU READ WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA? TRY READING SOMETHING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH. Originally Posted by 2short@desky

It never seems to amaze me how well informed these idiots are.

CG

I'll try to more clear so you don't go off on a tangent. From what US governing document did you get the idea that clean water is a Right of US citizens?

Clean water nor healthcare are specifically listed. However promoting the general welfare and common defence is mentioned. Moreover the Congress has the power to tax and make rules for the government. Clean water should be in the top 5 rules.

I think we can all agree that while not being a right, clean water falls smack dab in the middle of promoting the general welfare. I don't have to try really hard to make an argument that protecting our clean water supply falls under providing a common defense, either.

Dirty water simply should taken for granted by all Americans. That's a 3rd world issue not an American issue. I don't care who was in charge, allowing that to happen was fucking idiotic. More than one person should be in jail over that. Gross negligence plain & simple.

Health care is much more complex, but I think it also falls under general welfare. That being said, water isn't free so I wouldn't imagine health care would be either. Originally Posted by grean

I agree with most you say. I appreciate clean water, healthcare, good roads, air conditioning, and P4P None of them are rights however, promoting the general welfare, yes. So, I would like my stipend for P4P to arrive on time.....it's a healthcare issue.

you would have to click on that link i provided and READ the information to actually understand. maybe for you to comprehend, it might be asking alot but give it a shot.



It never seems to amaze me how well informed these idiots are.

CG Originally Posted by Copierguy0

Wow, you're just about a real kneejerker are you not? Tell you what, try hugging some trees in the Siberian forest and get a glimpse of what the real environment is like....undisturbed. I would suspect that you are one of those who treats the environment just as you do the English language and fellow mankind....with disrespect. Just curious, how much is Hillary up in the polls these days?

Frankly, I expected that to be 5-4, not 6-3. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

It has always bothered me that the Supreme Court, which is suppose to be separated from politics and also composed of brilliant legal minds, can be so predictable. Scalias and RBG, who were best friends, could almost always be counted on for a right or left vote, respectively, on cases where political lines intersected. I think the court should have a heavier center and only a light flavor of conservative or liberal leanings.

I also don't like that a court pick could upend the law. I was happy to hear Gorsuch say he felt Abortion was settled law. The fact that he concurred with Deshaw Hicks makes me start to feel that the center will be tended if Kennedy retires, Maaaybe. Not the first time a Justice didn't turn out to be the pick that a president thought.

It may be a fluke and he'll end up making Scalia look like a sissy left liberal by the time his tI'm in the court ends. Who knows?

Who knows? Originally Posted by grean

Finally. Either by accident or by design.....

....the answer to your own original question per this thread.

Finally. Either by accident or by design.....

....the answer to your own original question per this thread. Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Ha! Killin' me!

As the house of cards continues to fall.

"Three CNN employees have handed in their resignations over a retracted story linking President Trump to Russia, the network announced Monday.
The article was removed from CNN.com on Friday after the network decided it could no longer stand by its reporting."


"CNN blamed the mistake on a “breakdown in editorial workflow,” explaining that that “these types of stories” did not go through the usual departments such as fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers." http://www.thewrap.com/three-cnn-emp...y-russia-ties/


And now this video. https://youtu.be/jdP8TiKY8dE

It has always bothered me that the Supreme Court, which is suppose to be separated from politics and also composed of brilliant legal minds, can be so predictable. Scalias and RBG, who were best friends, could almost always be counted on for a right or left vote, respectively, on cases where political lines intersected. I think the court should have a heavier center and only a light flavor of conservative or liberal leanings.

I also don't like that a court pick could upend the law. I was happy to hear Gorsuch say he felt Abortion was settled law. The fact that he concurred with Deshaw Hicks makes me start to feel that the center will be tended if Kennedy retires, Maaaybe. Not the first time a Justice didn't turn out to be the pick that a president thought.

It may be a fluke and he'll end up making Scalia look like a sissy left liberal by the time his tI'm in the court ends. Who knows? Originally Posted by grean

Do you think RBG should have recused herself because of public comments she has made about president Trump? Do you think it is proper for a SCOTUS judge to make public comments like this?

"Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...ticism-n608006

Do you think RBG should have recused herself because of public comments she has made about president Trump? Do you think it is proper for a SCOTUS judge to make public comments like this?

"Ginsburg has slammed Trump three times in the last week.

• “He has no consistency about him," Ginsburg told CNN late Monday. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."
• She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
• When asked by Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...ticism-n608006 Originally Posted by goodolboy

Recuse herself from what exactly?

Ha! I agree with her 100%! She is one of the smartest legal minds living and was a highly cheerished & respected friend of Scalia, the conservative lion.

Trump is a fucking dumbshit loudmouth cocksucker. He's a bitch. He is a shyster & and a con artist. No one outside his camp respects him. G.H Bush, wouldn't even attend Trumps inauguration. Remember when Clint spoke to that empty seat? Man.....that speech would be so appropriate now.

Harry Truman had a plaque that said "The Buck Stops Here"

Trump blames every one else for every bad thing he causes and takes credit for anything good caused by everyone else!

I wish Trump would recuse himself.

Both Scalia & Ginsburg understood and could argue each other's legal philosophy. Trump doesn't understand how to keep his mouth shut.

Recuse herself from what exactly?

Ha! I agree with her 100%! She is one of the smartest legal minds living and was a highly cheerished & respected friend of Scalia, the conservative lion.

Trump is a fucking dumbshit loudmouth cocksucker. He's a bitch. He is a shyster & and a con artist. No one outside his camp respects him. G.H Bush, wouldn't even attend Trumps inauguration. Remember when Clint spoke to that empty seat? Man.....that speech would be so appropriate now.

Harry Truman had a plaque that said "The Buck Stops Here"

Trump blames every one else for every bad thing he causes and takes credit for anything good caused by everyone else!

I wish Trump would recuse himself. Originally Posted by grean

So when you said,

("Originally Posted by grean
It has always bothered me that the Supreme Court, which is suppose to be separated from politics." )


You meant "separated from politics" unless it's president Trump because you don't like him and your candidate lost.

("Trump doesn't understand how to keep his mouth shut.")

Trump is not a supreme court justice ruling on cases involving people judge Ginsberg has publicly disparaged. Perhaps it would be proper that Justice Ginsberg keep her public comments to herself so that it does not become a problem when these peoples cases appear before her in court?



"The Federal Statute
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:
Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
The law’s application to the case at hand is straight forward. Is there any doubt that Ginsburg’s comments demonstrate a personal bias or prejudice against President Trump? Indeed, they show an outright hostility."


"Moreover, the language of the statute is mandatory: “Any Justice shall disqualify” him or herself. Ginsburg has no choice but to step aside from the case. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has taken it further to say she should recuse herself from all court cases involving President Trump. " http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-ban-case.html

So when you said,

("Originally Posted by grean
It has always bothered me that the Supreme Court, which is suppose to be separated from politics." )


You meant "separated from politics" unless it's president Trump because you don't like him and your candidate lost.


"The Federal Statute
The rules demanding disqualification are set forth very clearly by federal statute, 28 USC 455:
Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
The law’s application to the case at hand is straight forward. Is there any doubt that Ginsburg’s comments demonstrate a personal bias or prejudice against President Trump? Indeed, they show an outright hostility."




"Moreover, the language of the statute is mandatory: “Any Justice shall disqualify” him or herself. Ginsburg has no choice but to step aside from the case. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has taken it further to say she should recuse herself from all court cases involving President Trump. " http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-ban-case.html Originally Posted by goodolboy

I meant in their rulings.