Trump continues to MAGA

newusername said:
He's not done too bad though
www.forbes.com

How President Donald Trump More Than Doubled His Fortune In One Year

Trump came one ruling away from losing control of his empire. Some counted him out, but his supporters hung on, supplying votes and money needed for a historic comeback.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
The Magalouts buy his "griftware"
He gets money funnelled in through his sh!tcoins for political favours rendered

Not a bad return for someone who should have been jailed not elected
 
TeessideCleveland said:
www.theguardian.com

Trump news at a glance: president boasts of ‘monumental’ win after supreme court curtails power of federal judges

Justices’ decision set to impact Trump move to limit birthright citizenship – key US politics stories from Friday 27 June at a glance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court is becoming pretty much of a joke now - virtually anything Trump wants, they just hand it to him. You don't want judges to be able to block your unconstitutional Executive Orders? Done. You want to be able to deport people to third countries? Fine.

Oh, and of course the biggie - want to avoid being prosecuted for any crimes you might commit while in office? Here's blanket immunity from prosecution for anything that can be termed an "official act."
 
I’m disappointed in Barrett-Cohen
Liamo said:
The US Supreme Court is becoming pretty much of a joke now - virtually anything Trump wants, they just hand it to him. You don't want judges to be able to block your unconstitutional Executive Orders? Done. You want to be able to deport people to third countries? Fine.

Oh, and of course the biggie - want to avoid being prosecuted for any crimes you might commit while in office? Here's blanket immunity from prosecution for anything that can be termed an "official act."
Click to expand...
Don’t worry I’m sure they will be overturned this if the Democrats win the next presidential election ( if there is one of course.)

Disappointed in Amy Coney Barrett I thought she had come round to reasonable jurisprudence.
 
Angus said:
I’m disappointed in Barrett-Cohen

Don’t worry I’m sure they will be overturned this if the Democrats win the next presidential election ( if there is one of course.)

Disappointed in Amy Coney Barrett I thought she had come round to reasonable jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

I’ll doubtless be called pro Trump again so I should probably duck out but the thing about the 6-3 decisions is that they usually are reasonable jurisprudence. Because ACB (and, in my view, the chief justice as well, although as an originalist he can appear quite conservative) have shown themselves to be prepared to judge each case on its merits. Excepting the most egregious examples, the other seven aren’t. Those two tipped the court to making a sound finding in this case that lower court interim relief should only extend to the point where it is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights.

By way of example, the three “liberals” yesterday opposed age verification for pornography because it came from Texas. No one in their right mind would see that as a real freedom of speech issue rather than a child protection issue. I would have forgiven the chief justice for doing so, from a literaralist perspective. For the three modernists who opposed that decision to do so was ridiculous.
 
FishofContemplation said:
opposed age verification for pornography because it came from Texas
Click to expand...
They will have opposed it for the same reason the left (and liberals) in the UK oppose it.

The responsibility for child access to pornography lies with parents. End of story.

Any law that relies on "won't you think of the children" is almost certainly (a) a bad law, and (b) a precursor for scope-creep into other civil liberties.
 
FishofContemplation said:
I’ll doubtless be called pro Trump again so I should probably duck out but the thing about the 6-3 decisions is that they usually are reasonable jurisprudence. Because ACB (and, in my view, the chief justice as well, although as an originalist he can appear quite conservative) have shown themselves to be prepared to judge each case on its merits. Excepting the most egregious examples, the other seven aren’t. Those two tipped the court to making a sound finding in this case that lower court interim relief should only extend to the point where it is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights.

By way of example, the three “liberals” yesterday opposed age verification for pornography because it came from Texas. No one in their right mind would see that as a real freedom of speech issue rather than a child protection issue. I would have forgiven the chief justice for doing so, from a literaralist perspective. For the three modernists who opposed that decision to do so was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I would take issue that it is a “sound finding” effectively it transfers powers from the Federal courts to the executive. The most radical government in living memory, the president elected on a minority of 1.5% over his rival can potentially issue extreme executive orders that can’t now be checked in the way that effectively could in the modern age. As an aside the executive orders he signed concerning various law firms he doesn’t like are chilling and should send shivers down the back of any right minded individual. Thankfully all those orders have been enjoined by the courts.

The only check now on POTUS is the Supreme Court itself. Individual plaintiffs have to seek protection on a piecemeal basis unless they can certify a class which can be difficult. The Supreme Court have emasculated the Federal courts largely.

The result is that inevitably there will be a big increase in litigation. Trump won’t be bothered about that the state will pay his bills. If he loses individual cases he may well not appeal not wanting a case to go anywhere near the Supreme Court.

I’m not sure that John Roberts “originalist” credentials were on show when effectively he with the majority of the court put a President at times above the law with their decision decision on immunity.
 
Last edited:
FishofContemplation said:
By way of example, the three “liberals” yesterday opposed age verification for pornography because it came from Texas.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, that's a claim without any basis in fact. Unless you have some evidence to support it - in which case, please let us know what that evidence is.

I'll help you. Here's a link to the full decision, which includes Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Brown Jackson). Please point out which part of this dissenting opinion is based on the fact that the proposed law came from Texas.

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top