May 1May 1 9 minutes ago, barho said:I am arguing against the fact that the SCOTUS specifically ruled Trump must facilitate his return. Trump specifically stated he could easily call the pres of El Salvador and ask he be released. He is not doing that therefore he is in defiance of a supreme court order. What can't you get through you thick skull?Yes. If you’re saying that SCOTUS can compel Trump to make any call to a foreign leader or "facilitate” any matter of diplomacy, you are arguing against the constitution. Full stop.They flatly do not have any power or control over foreign affairs by the constitution. It’s right there in the document. There are separations of power, and SCOTUS is separated from this power.So, again, you are arguing against "our democracy” and you don’t even understand this basic fact.
May 1May 1 30 minutes ago, TEW said:The senate and POTUS collaborate on treaties, by constitutional law. But this isn’t a matter a treaty…It’s more a question of if SCOTUS takes this position, not POTUS. Are they going to grant themselves new constitutional powers, superseding the co-equal branch which is actually granted these powers in the constitution, and do so by judicial fiat?Right, my point was that the general assertion pushed by MAGA now that the Executive branch holds all foreign diplomatic interaction is incorrect.As I said, let's see what SCOTUS does if the Trump WH formally takes the position that they are not complied to do anything as this is a diplomatic issue. As of now, the DOJ has formally pursued a path of evasion and has not taken a formal stance in court based on Executive power.
May 1May 1 22 minutes ago, TEW said:Yes. If you’re saying that SCOTUS can compel Trump to make any call to a foreign leader or "facilitate” any matter of diplomacy, you are arguing against the constitution. Full stop.They flatly do not have any power or control over foreign affairs by the constitution. It’s right there in the document. There are separations of power, and SCOTUS is separated from this power.So, again, you are arguing against "our democracy” and you don’t even understand this basic fact.I can't anymore, I just can't. You're a lost soul. Go give your Orange God all the powers he craves for. You are not a true American.
May 1May 1 2 minutes ago, barho said:I can't anymore, I just can't. You're a lost soul. Go give your Orange God all the powers he craves for. You are not a true American.Why do you hate the constitution and our democracy?
May 1May 1 45 minutes ago, barho said:You are not a true American.And who the F are you to think your opinion even matters? 🤣🤣🤣
May 1May 1 3 minutes ago, lynched1 said:Interesting hill to die on...Any red blooded American will gladly die on the hill of due process, it's about as American as it gets
May 1May 1 33 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:Any red blooded American will gladly die on the hill of due process, it's about as American as it getsLawyers will. The average American is about tired of their s***.Laws are created by lawyers who generally write them so only they can afford to exploit them.
May 1May 1 2 hours ago, barho said:I can't anymore, I just can't. You're a lost soul. Go give your Orange God all the powers he craves for. You are not a true American.You're arguing with the same guy who said the notsee who ran over and killed the woman in Charlottesville might not get convicted of murder because she was obese and technically died of a heart attack. Imagine actually thinking that a jury would hear the facts of the case, where a two ton vehicle slams into a human being, causing that person to die, and then coming to a not guilty verdict, because you don't understand the law or even basic medical facts. In other words, you're arguing with a retarded person.
May 1May 1 44 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:You're arguing with the same guy who said the notsee who ran over and killed the woman in Charlottesville might not get convicted of murder because she was obese and technically died of a heart attack. Imagine actually thinking that a jury would hear the facts of the case, where a two ton vehicle slams into a human being, causing that person to die, and then coming to a not guilty verdict, because you don't understand the law or even basic medical facts. In other words, you're arguing with a retarded person.OJ
May 2May 2 6 hours ago, TEW said:"Our democracy” literally gives this power to POTUS, not the supreme court.If you’re arguing against this constitutional fact, and saying that SCOTUS can compel diplomatic relations, when the constitution explicitly vests this power to the President, you are arguing against "our democracy” you nitwit.False. Judicial review is a fact of government in this country and has been since the earliest days.Detractors to judicial review have always been present and include weighty names, but it has always been a minority view.
May 2May 2 8 hours ago, lynched1 said:Lawyers will. The average American is about tired of their s***.Laws are created by lawyers who generally write them so only they can afford to exploit them.Actually, a large majority is opposed to deportations without proper due process.
May 2May 2 15 hours ago, lynched1 said:And who the F are you to think your opinion even matters? 🤣🤣🤣You are the worst of the worst. IDGAF what you think. Fact remains.
May 2May 2 16 hours ago, TEW said:Yes. If you’re saying that SCOTUS can compel Trump to make any call to a foreign leader or "facilitate” any matter of diplomacy, you are arguing against the constitution. Full stop.If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know Trump is blatantly violating the Fifth Amendment. It is not about forced diplomacy; it is about following the law.
May 2May 2 14 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:You're arguing with the same guy who said the notsee who ran over and killed the woman in Charlottesville might not get convicted of murder because she was obese and technically died of a heart attack. Imagine actually thinking that a jury would hear the facts of the case, where a two ton vehicle slams into a human being, causing that person to die, and then coming to a not guilty verdict, because you don't understand the law or even basic medical facts. In other words, you're arguing with a retarded person.I know this is just the little man shtick because TEW hurt your feelings one time, but the argument wasn't outlandish. TEW just said that a good defense lawyer might be able to avoid murder charges because the morbidly obese person died of a heart attack. You realize that, generally, when people are hit by cars, their cause of death isn't heart attack, right?
May 2May 2 2 minutes ago, Kz! said:I know this is just the little man shtick because TEW hurt your feelings one time, but the argument wasn't outlandish. TEW just said that a good defense lawyer might be able to avoid murder charges because the morbidly obese person died of a heart attack. You realize that, generally, when people are hit by cars, their cause of death isn't heart attack, right? See folks? They're all this retarded. Every single one of them.
May 2May 2 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:See folks? They're all this retarded. Every single one of them."A good defense lawyer might be able to avoid murder charges because the morbidly obese woman died of a heart attack and not blunt force trauma which is nearly always the case in vehicle ramming incidents"litte man: REEEEE! this is so crazy I'm going to reference it in unrelated arguments for nearly a full decade!! I am very normal!
May 2May 2 1 minute ago, Kz! said:"A good defense lawyer might be able to avoid murder charges because the morbidly obese woman died of a heart attack and not blunt force trauma which is nearly always the case in vehicle ramming incidents"litte man: REEEEE! this is so crazy I'm going to reference it in unrelated arguments for nearly a full decade!! I am very normal! And as I said at the time, it's common for blunt force trauma to the chest to cause heart attacks, especially when the object causing that trauma has a mass of two tons moving at 25mph. I know you uneducated rubes never paid attention in physics class but to the rest of us, those dots weren't exactly difficult ones to connect in order to convince a jury of what exactly happened.
May 2May 2 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:And as I said at the time, it's common for blunt force trauma to the chest to cause heart attacks, especially when the object causing that trauma has a mass of two tons moving at 25mph. I know you uneducated rubes never paid attention in physics class but to the rest of us, those dots weren't exactly difficult ones to connect in order to convince a jury of what exactly happened.REEEE! Quick pivot to when TEW said he wanted to machine gun all illegals at the border.
May 2May 2 1 minute ago, Kz! said:REEEE! Quick pivot to when TEW said he wanted to machine gun all illegals at the border. Giving up already? Low energy. No stamina. Sad!
May 2May 2 2 hours ago, Kz! said:I know this is just the little man shtick because TEW hurt your feelings one time, but the argument wasn't outlandish. TEW just said that a good defense lawyer might be able to avoid murder charges because the morbidly obese person died of a heart attack. You realize that, generally, when people are hit by cars, their cause of death isn't heart attack, right? It's generally Covid.
May 2May 2 1 hour ago, GreenReaper said:It's generally Covid.I want to thank you for all the emoji tags lately. Please keep up the good work so I can get to the next level quicker.
Create an account or sign in to comment