I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID and Medicare programmes). A lot of what Trump is doing is a clear violation of the separation of powers, but as the GOP has cut off their balls and sent them gift-wrapped to Mar-a-Lago, it'll be up to federal judges to insist on the separation of powers.
Trump evidently thinks he can make the DoJ into a sub-division of the executive branch. If he succeeds, America is in deep trouble. Given that the courts failed miserably to make a charge of insurrection stick, or even get a conviction for election tampering in a single state, in four years, (that phone call to Raffensberger should have been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
@moonbus saidNot true. Eliminating USAID would have been a violation of the separation of powers, but he did not do that. I am sure he wanted to, but it was not a real option. So he just reduced the work force instead which is legal.
I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID an ...[text shortened]... ave been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
Like many politicians Trump uses false reasons to get away with things. A good example is his stated reason for unilaterally imposing tariffs. He cannot impose tariffs like that unless there is a reason to protect Americans from harm. That is why Fentanyl is his excuse.
Get used to the legal dance. You are confusing talk with action. He did not eliminate USAID. That was just talk.
@my-king-and-i removed their quoted postYou know that because?
In fact I am under the impression that No1 is far more read in law than any ther person here.
@my-king-and-i removed their quoted postno1m has subscriptions to paid publications that are typically available to lawyers. So either he is a lawyer or just very well-read in the law. 😆
For purposes of these forums, he is a lawyer or lawyer-equivalent. 😆
1 edit
@moonbus saidThe ONLY thing that a conservative could possibly glean from this post of Moonbus is that it his (personal) opinion that no authority, be it the president or any authority, needs to, or should be allowed to, investigate agencies of the government, like the DOJ or the FBI, to be sure they are not acting in any way other than how they should be acting. An inspection. He says to leave them as they are, as they have been for 4 years. Wow.
I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID an ...[text shortened]... ave been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
Oh, and since the Raffensberger case and the 'Insurrection' cases went no where in a DEMOCRATIC administration, Moonbus wastes our reading time with a non sequitur, he mentions these matters as if the Biden administration should have thrown him in jail, when in fact he was found guilty of neither.
In other words, Moonbus is air. yawn city. Oh, and he does not tell us how Trump violated Separation of Powers. He just 'says' it, like his bedfellow Snhouse.
@moonbus saidyou poor ignorant, gullible fool
I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID an ...[text shortened]... ave been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
@moonbus saidAlready saw it little feller.
I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID an ...[text shortened]... ave been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
You and Sonhouse, with a contribution from Wildgas (makes more sense than Wildgrass,)... need to tell us what your wish list is. What do you want? Trump is president. Move on, please. You are on a fundamental assault of the Constitution, you use judges to do it. You want them as dictators, not even elected.
Judges should be brought in and asked how they arrive at random decisions, so that we can see what the fundamental foundation is built upon.
81% of Americans believe that the government is corrupt. See link. Do you think for One second that Marauder will respond to these Rasmussen findings.? He posted some poll 2 days ago that fits his convenience. This one does NOT, so we will get nothing from him.
That is Marauder in a nutshell. He wants judicial tyranny.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2016/81_think_federal_government_is_corrupt#google_vignette
@moonbus saidSo far, not so well for the Trump administration in the courts. Many of his executive orders have been ruled illegal and/or unconstitutional by district courts and it has little success in the appellate courts in attempting to overturn the restraining orders issued which block the implementation of his royal pronouncements. There is a site which tracks all of the cases filed against the administration policies here: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
I have a vague memory of a court ruling that laws should not be changed arbitrarily, simply because continuity is a good thing in and of itself. A lot of what Trump is doing could be challenged on that basis, if the courts had any balls.
Furthermore, a president should not be able to countermand what Congress has already mandated or authorized (such as funding for USAID an ...[text shortened]... ave been a clincher, plus the bogus electors scheme), how do you see this playing out in the courts?
There's 126 of them.
BTW, it's none of anybody's business but Albany Law School class of 1991.