Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Any single district judge can block an executive order.

That is ridiculous.


Judges have also blocked legislative acts. It was a conservative Bush appointee who blocked Texa's effort to defund planned parenthood, after the Project Veritas videos in 2015. The judges rational may have been sound (The entire thing was a media circus with edited videos that should not be the basis for governmental decisions), but regardless, it's the legislature's purview to make funding decisions. Why should a judge be able to interfere in that?

Yes, and the corollary problem is that we have too many activist judges. The legislators and executive are supposed to be political activists, judges and justices are not.

This is because the legislators and executive branch are supposed to create, change, and execute policy in accordance with the will of the electorate. Judges and Justices are supposed to uphold the constitution as is.

It isn't the place of the Supreme Court to read shit into the constitution that has zero basis, it is the place of a convention of states by vote to change the constitution.

Is the president too powerful? For ****s sake the guy targeted Warner because he hates cnn. No one bats an eyelash.

Originally posted by cdtm
Any single district judge can block an executive order.

That is ridiculous.


Judges have also blocked legislative acts. It was a conservative Bush appointee who blocked Texa's effort to defund planned parenthood, after the Project Veritas videos in 2015. The judges rational may have been sound (The entire thing was a media circus with edited videos that should not be the basis for governmental decisions), but regardless, it's the legislature's purview to make funding decisions. Why should a judge be able to interfere in that?

Nonsense why shouldn't some tools in California get to block shit that impacts the entire country?! That's their right as Californians.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Is the president too powerful? For ****s sake the guy targeted Warner because he hates cnn. No one bats an eyelash.
Honestly yeah the executive branch is too powerful, but this isn't exclusive to Trump.

The problem is that both Republican and Democrat legislatures for the past century have been more than happy to let the power of the executive branch expand so long as their guy is in office, ignoring the fact that someone they don't like will eventually come to wield that power.

And honestly the federal government is way too powerful.

We stray away from the core vision of the founding fathers at our own peril.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Honestly yeah the executive branch is too powerful, but this isn't exclusive to Trump.

The problem is that both Republican and Democrat legislatures for the past century have been more than happy to let the power of the executive branch expand so long as their guy is in office, ignoring the fact that someone they don't like will eventually come to wield that power.

And honestly the federal government is way too powerful.

We stray away from the core vision of the founding fathers at our own peril.

You gotta love them screaming about stories that haven't even been confirmed as to reasons why Trump has too much power lol. TDS at it's finest.(With some SDS thrown in too)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Honestly yeah the executive branch is too powerful, but this isn't exclusive to Trump.

The problem is that both Republican and Democrat legislatures for the past century have been more than happy to let the power of the executive branch expand so long as their guy is in office, ignoring the fact that someone they don't like will eventually come to wield that power.

And honestly the federal government is way too powerful.

We stray away from the core vision of the founding fathers at our own peril. I agree but this should be a wake up call. The corruption on all sides needs to be reined in. It is so appalling this is what makes the truly poor like Surtur so hopeless.

The law is always the peoples last line of defence.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The law is always the peoples last line of defence.

As it should be.

The question is, do the courts interpretations perform that function? For every Roe vs Wade, you can find corporate personhood, or interpreting the commerce clause to allow protectism of wheat markets by forbidding private growth of wheat. (Or in extreme cases, forced sterilizations.)

Yes

Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
Yes

I disagree. I think courts far too often overreach.

The commerce clause, for example, was never intended to protect the wheat industry from lost profits in the event citizens learn to become self sufficient. That is clear overreach, and an example of the courts NOT interpreting the law in the best interests of the people.

From my understanding of American government:

- The courts aren't too powerful. But they are powerful enough to use the law in ways that are narrow and should potentially to better legislation.

- The president is too powerful because the congress is lame and they essentially have two abilities: 1) destroy the government and 2) complain

Originally posted by cdtm
Any single district judge can block an executive order.


And this is how it should be. Executive orders are unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear. Congress is supposed to make laws. Presidents, Governors, etc, are not supposed to rule by decree. That's exactly why the courts are there, they need to keep it up.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
And this is how it should be. Executive orders are unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear. Congress is supposed to make laws. Presidents, Governors, etc, are not supposed to rule by decree. That's exactly why the courts are there, they need to keep it up. Exactly.

No system is perfect, and human beings are wonderfully adept at finding flaws and loopholes for abuse. As such, any element of a power system which helps to minimize those abuses and keeps the system balanced, seems positive to me.

Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. He lies all the time. Trump is a liar and a spin man. Why people cannot see this is beyond me.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
And this is how it should be. Executive orders are unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear. Congress is supposed to make laws. Presidents, Governors, etc, are not supposed to rule by decree. That's exactly why the courts are there, they need to keep it up.


I don't believe an executive order is a law, though. It's simply an order to those of the executive branch under him.


Which is as it should be, seeing he heads the Executive branch.


Btw, it's the same for congress. Judges can block legislative orders, as we've seen in Texas when they tried to stop Planned Parenthood funding, and a Bush appointed judge called shenanigans, and prevented the defunding.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. He lies all the time. Trump is a liar and a spin man. Why people cannot see this is beyond me. I strongly suspect that -- except perhaps for the most dense of his supporters -- they see. They know. But they don't care. They want what he's selling, at any cost, so play along and truth be damned.

Living history. So much of the past now makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Mindship
I strongly suspect that -- except perhaps for the most dense of his supporters -- they see. They know. But they don't care. They want what he's selling, at any cost, so play along and truth be damned.

Living history. So much of the past now makes sense to me. I think deep down they know too. They want to be deceived live in a fantasy world to escape reality.

Originally posted by cdtm
I don't believe an executive order is a law, though. It's simply an order to those of the executive branch under him.


Which is as it should be, seeing he heads the Executive branch.


Btw, it's the same for congress. Judges can block legislative orders, as we've seen in Texas when they tried to stop Planned Parenthood funding, and a Bush appointed judge called shenanigans, and prevented the defunding.

An executive order usually functions as a law in practice and can apply to everybody. It is the job of the court system to interpret laws as they are written by congress. The very fact they need to intervene in executive orders shows they are seen as de facto laws. Of course court decisions, and laws in general, are always going to be seen as an over reach by those who don't like that particular decision or law. Just the way it is. Checks and balances is a good thing. The legal process can often be long and ardous, but it sure beats the alternative