Jump to content

Commie-Libs Found Another obama Judge!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

Im sorry I couldn't get past...

"Ross had said the question - which has not appeared on the decennial census since 1950 - was necessary to enforce federal laws protecting eligible voters."

Does this mean we've been counting non us citizens? Then this...

"The plaintiffs - 18 U.S. states, 15 cities and various civil rights groups - said that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens will frighten immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the count."

Why would it frighten immigrants if they are here legally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I’m no legal scholar.  A thereto interspersed with any Latin word, sends me into a coma.  With that out of the way, it seems like the Judicial Branch of our Govt is upsetting the balance of the three.  To many of our Fed Judges base their rulings on their ideology instead of the Constitution.  Not sure how these suits (appeals?) work, but it seems easy enough to find a judge to block anything the President may want to do.  And for a Repub, the 9th Court of Appeals is Death Valley.  In the past, the President lead the country, now he does so only at the dispensation of the Judicial Branch.  Personally, I find this trend extremely disturbing and dangerous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hagar said:

Obviously, I’m no legal scholar.  A thereto interspersed with any Latin word, sends me into a coma.  With that out of the way, it seems like the Judicial Branch of our Govt is upsetting the balance of the three.  To many of our Fed Judges base their rulings on their ideology instead of the Constitution.  Not sure how these suits (appeals?) work, but it seems easy enough to find a judge to block anything the President may want to do.  And for a Repub, the 9th Court of Appeals is Death Valley.  In the past, the President lead the country, now he does so only at the dispensation of the Judicial Branch.  Personally, I find this trend extremely disturbing and dangerous.  

Trump’s appointments are slowly getting appointed across the country.  That’s one of the main reasons we need him in office for a 2nd term   

From Wiki

“As of January 12, 2019, there were 12 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 120 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade,

This is the hidden content, please
 and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (3 for the Courts of Appeals and 14 for District Courts).
This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Trump’s appointments are slowly getting appointed across the country.  That’s on of the main reasons we need him in office for a 2nd term   

From Wiki

“As of January 12, 2019, there were 12 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 120 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade,

This is the hidden content, please
 and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (3 for the Courts of Appeals and 14 for District Courts).
This is the hidden content, please

I know, and holy moley, I hope he wins again.  Still, there will always be some Judges who think “the law” is based on what they want, not the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

Trump’s appointments are slowly getting appointed across the country.  That’s on of the main reasons we need him in office for a 2nd term   

From Wiki

“As of January 12, 2019, there were 12 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 120 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade,

This is the hidden content, please
 and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (3 for the Courts of Appeals and 14 for District Courts).
This is the hidden content, please

The dems won’t like having all these judges legislating from the bench according to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,882
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cneal94
    Newest Member
    cneal94
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Really good hire! As I stated previously on this thread, Mike T has been an essential part of WB’s success the last few years & is a student of the game & I have a ton of respect for how he goes about things as a coach. Big on teaching kids how to do things the right way to prepare them for not only basketball but the game of life. He’ll be fine there, my only question is what kind of talent does WB have returning?  Best thing about this situation for Mike T is WB will be 5A for at least the next 2 years, so he should win a lot of games & have some deep playoff runs.
    • So which coaches kid gets the QB job? Trotter or Barrier
    • A Winnie land owner (and others) sued the State of Texas after they built IH-10 a few feet higher in order to help contain storm flooding. Sure enough a hurricane hit and flooded the land. The storm improvements worked!! Unfortunately the state sacrificed several people’s properties in using the interstate highway as a dam.  Richard DeVillier tried to sue Texas under our laws and Constitution and the US Constitution under the Fifth Amendment “taking clause” (eminent domain). After a favorable ruling in the federal district court on the right to sue Texas directly, the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans overturned that ruling and said that the DeVlier had no authority to sue Texas directly.  On Tuesday a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that DeVillier and others had the right to sue Texas directly under Texas law and under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. The case is now sent back down to the lower court. DeVillier and others have not won their lawsuits as the case has not been decided on its merits at a trial. He still has to go to prove his case. What they did win was a unanimous Supreme Court agreeing that he has the right to bring Texas to trial for taking his property with just compensation.   
    • Don't jump?!  What?!
    • @Big girl  @UT alum     Amazing, isn't it?!  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...