Supreme Court decisions.

[SCBills]

It’s honestly sad how unqualified Ketanji Brown-Jackson comes across.

 

It didn’t need to be this way and she doesn’t need to be such an easy mark for the people who say everything black is DEI.

 

Shes truly harmful to her own cause. 

[The Frankish Reich]

49 minutes ago, SCBills said:

It’s honestly sad how unqualified Ketanji Brown-Jackson comes across.

 

It didn’t need to be this way and she doesn’t need to be such an easy mark for the people who say everything black is DEI.

 

Shes truly harmful to her own cause. 

In what way does she come off as “unqualified?” Don’t rely on what people tell you about her dissent in the nationwide injunctions case. Read that dissent. It is a commonsense response to the majority’s hypertechnical can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees opinion. 
 

That stupid Babylon Bee thing someone posted reveals an ugly racism behind this line of “criticism”

[Albwan]

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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.  
 

 

[Andy1]

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]

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.