Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Yet, it seems to me that your argument is, ‘We get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit and hire a lawyer.’
Nailed it. Because they know full-well that most people DON'T have the capacity to file a lawsuit and hire a lawyer. They are ignoring laws because they know no one will make them stop.
Can't wait to see the court vote 6-3 the other way.
After the court rules against them, they will just continue to do as they please... Who's going to stop them?
It will take military intervention to stop this wanton administration. Then it will require some constitutional amendments to prevent it ever happening again.
I have little hope of either thing happening. Neither party is interested in accountability
It would be a good idea for the Department of Justice to be under the tutelage of the judiciary and the supreme court.
I'm probably wrong because not even close to an expert... But it's the DoJ that argues cases for the government. I'm not sure that would work if they're both the same branch. Major conflict of interest.
We are in the same place as when Andrew Jackson was president. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," Andrew Jackson in reference to the trail of tears being ruled unconstitutional.
I have run out of respect for those fuckheads in those robes. The Shite Ones have made The Decent Ones deplorable.
‘We get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit and hire a lawyer.’ I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”
WHEN THE FUCK WILL YOU LEARN THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW, YOU FUCKING ROBED MORONS ?
Call me crazy, but can't the SCOTUS set precedent? I'm not a lawyer, but I can fucking read
The legislature sets laws. The senate approves laws. The judiciary interprets laws.
If the legislature doesn’t like how a law is interpreted, they can change the wording to be less ambiguous, but it would still need to be approved by the senate. This new law would supersede any precedents.
The executive is there to keep the system functioning, not to create any laws itself.
This is functioning?
The currently executive in the US is either completely incompetent or maliciously trying to destroy the US.
I'm operating under the assumption that he is both virtuosically incompetent, AND an active, enthusiastic traitor who is literally trying to destroy America, so it can be more easily exploited by him and his wealthy friends from around the world.
I also say both. I can think of 8647 reasons he shouldn’t be president.