leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 28 Posted June 28 6 hours ago, Andy1 said: During the Obama and Biden times, conservatives repeatedly used lower court rulings to constrain their orders. That is a good thing and in keeping with conservative principles in that it forces slower societal change through laws developed in the legislative branch. Through this process, the 49% of Americans who supported the losing side of the presidential election felt that they still had some say, through the courts, in the future of the nation. Now we have a SC which is repeatedly increasing the power of the presidency through their decisions. Trump will use these powers to the max. And these new powers will be used by all who come after him, including those with liberal views. This is not a good thing for society in that it allows for more radical change in either direction, depending on the whims of one individual. The other 49% will feel powerless and become increasingly hateful, all of which is bad for America, making us more divided and less United. For sure, next thing you know we’ll have an administration laying siege to a former president’s home, tossing the place, removing documents clearly outside the scope of the search, photos of file folders leaked to the press, and quite a hubbub about how national security and classified documents must not be removed by an outgoing commander-in-chief….then when it turns out the current prez has been pilfering and maintaining documents for decades he’ll probably tell us that that sort of classified document pilfering is ok because he has a nice American muscle car stored nearby. Then from there it’s a hop skip and a jump to fisa surveillance, reimagined and reinvented criminal statutes, working with foreign nationals to influence the outcome of elections, and preemptive ex post-facto pardons for anyone the president ever met. I really miss the old days when everything was sunshine, roses and beyond reproach. 1 1
Andy1 Posted June 28 Posted June 28 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: For sure, next thing you know we’ll have an administration laying siege to a former president’s home, tossing the place, removing documents clearly outside the scope of the search, photos of file folders leaked to the press, and quite a hubbub about how national security and classified documents must not be removed by an outgoing commander-in-chief….then when it turns out the current prez has been pilfering and maintaining documents for decades he’ll probably tell us that that sort of classified document pilfering is ok because he has a nice American muscle car stored nearby. Then from there it’s a hop skip and a jump to fisa surveillance, reimagined and reinvented criminal statutes, working with foreign nationals to influence the outcome of elections, and preemptive ex post-facto pardons for anyone the president ever met. I really miss the old days when everything was sunshine, roses and beyond reproach. Leh-nerd this is a lame response distracting from the issue. It’s like Dems replying with the atrocities of J6 for every topic. The relevant topic is how much power should the president have. Look beyond Trump to when a Bernie type president gets elected. Would you want them to have increased powers? Or would you rather the courts to be able to mitigate their decisions, until the issue at that time is decided by the SC? Maybe it’s all irrelevant since when that time comes, this court will probably reverse itself and decide the states have rights and the executive power is limited.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 29 Posted June 29 25 minutes ago, Andy1 said: Leh-nerd this is a lame response distracting from the issue. It’s like Dems replying with the atrocities of J6 for every topic. I don’t choose to look at issues in a vacuum, seeing the political landscape as interconnected. Your concern today is presidential overreach. My concern is we already have seen that. 25 minutes ago, Andy1 said: The relevant topic is how much power should the president have. Look beyond Trump to when a Bernie type president gets elected. Would you want them to have increased powers? Or would you rather the courts to be able to mitigate their decisions, until the issue at that time is decided by the SC? Maybe it’s all irrelevant since when that time comes, this court will probably reverse itself and decide the states have rights and the executive power is limited. I struggle with the notion that a federal judge with liberal or conservative leanings has as much power as they do. I look at the recent decision from the perspective of constitutional authority, and it seems to me the SC feels those judges are may have been operating outside the scope of their lawful authority. With respect to Sanders, I always assume that’s coming. I gave a couple examples of things that concern me as much, or more than this. Better to be prepared than surprised. 1 1
Homelander Posted June 30 Posted June 30 On 6/27/2025 at 10:11 AM, B-Man said: Supreme Court Allows States to Cut Off After all these years of accusing Democrats of politicizing and lying about this, you must be feeling pretty proud. I’m sure this will hit close to home - for you, your family, and your friends.
The Frankish Reich Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, Homelander said: After all these years of accusing Democrats of politicizing and lying about this, you must be feeling pretty proud. I’m sure this will hit close to home - for you, your family, and your friends. Notice that what he’s really saying is that Trump has no idea what this bill actually does. It’s almost as if he’s a bronzed auto pen. 1
B-Man Posted July 9 Author Posted July 9 (edited) When Ketanji Brown Jackson is too stupid for even Sonya Sotomayor, well, that is saying something. Edited July 9 by B-Man 1
Homelander Posted July 20 Posted July 20 On 7/3/2024 at 11:20 AM, B-Man said: Okay, back to the thread. Yes, the Supreme Court got it right By Randy White On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision affirming that presidents have immunity Karma.
B-Man Posted August 22 Author Posted August 22 Another win. . . . . . . . with a beatdown from Justice Gorsuch. "Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect "the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress" Damned straight.
B-Man Posted August 22 Author Posted August 22 Trump Chalks Up Another Victory at the Supreme Court Over Ending DEI President Donald Trump chalked up another victory in the United States Supreme Court after it ruled that the administration could freeze $783 million in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) gender identity and race-based grants for research with the National Institutes of Health. In a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, SCOTUS denied the motion for a stay in NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, ET AL. by siding with the administration, allowing for the termination of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to the NIH, which were started during Dr. Anthony Fauci's leadership. https://redstate.com/katie-jerkovich/2025/08/21/trump-chalks-up-another-victory-in-the-supreme-court-over-ending-dei-gender-insanity-n2193084 1
B-Man Posted August 24 Author Posted August 24 Justice Jackson Writes Opinions For Her Media Fanbase, Not Everyday Americans by Shawn Fleetwood In roughly three years, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established herself as one of the most recognized members of the Supreme Court — and not in a good way. Despite being the most junior justice on the high court, Jackson has regularly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her colleagues for upholding America’s constitutional framework. Whether it be through public comments or poorly written opinions, the Biden appointee has shown little respect for the longstanding traditions and collegiality that have defined SCOTUS for generations. {snip} While it’s not uncommon for justices to explain their disagreements and problems with the opposing side’s legal rationale in their opinions, Jackson’s dissent (and this isn’t the first time) takes on another level of snide that’s unbecoming of a junior justice. She went on to effectively accuse her colleagues in the majority of abandoning all semblance of proper jurisprudence and respect for the law in order to bend over backwards for the Trump administration. It’s pretty telling that none of the other justices in the dissent signed onto Jackson’s tirade. While they may share ideological similarities, even Sotomayor and Kagan recognize the importance of respecting and getting along with their conservative-leaning colleagues — especially given that these are lifetime appointments. But for Jackson, that seemingly matters very little. https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/22/justice-jackson-writes-opinions-for-her-media-fanbase-not-everyday-americans/
Recommended Posts