ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Forgot about him. He lied to Congress under penalty of perjury not once but twice. He even self confessed and wrote an apology letter. Not only was he not charged for lying under oath but he kept his position as CIA director within the Obama administration. Clear double standard.

Although I have to admit that Flynn wouldn't have been charged in any other investigation. The only reason he's being charged now is because Mueller needs indictments to make his witch hunt look semi legit. It's the same reason he's prosecuting people for FARA violations. Half of DC is guilty of lobbying on behalf of someone without registering. No one ever gets charged.

Same for Cohen and campaign finance violation. Normally it's civil and comes with a fine. Mueller has made it criminal. Again he has to keep up the appearance in order to keep pushing the narrative.

Cohen isn’t going to jail for campaign finance crimes. They tied that in with the fraud charges for appearance.
It’s like getting charged for vehicular homicide and the prosecutor throwing in a tail light out in the charge.
It’s only in there to tie him to Trump, they are trying to keep this investigation over his head so he won’t wreck their house of cards.
 
Not exactly Breitbart or a Trump loving author.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...p-daca-ruling-ninth-circuit-court/2016817002/

Judges are treating Trump as a second-class president


Judges won't let Trump exercise powers that other presidents would be allowed to exercise.

There has been a lot of careless commentary about the alleged threat that President Donald Trump poses to the constitutional order, that he is a budding despot.

During his nearly two years in office, Trump has occasionally attempted to stretch presidential powers, such as his promised executive order to abolish birthright citizenship. However, no more so than did President Barack Obama, and arguably considerably less so.

So far, however, Trump has accepted the checks on his ability to act imposed by Congress and the courts. He has operated within the constitutional order.

In fact, the greatest threat to the constitutional order during Trump's tenure has actually come from the federal bench. Judges have relegated Trump to being a second-class president. Because the judges disapprove of Trump’s character and behavior, they hold that he cannot exercise the authority that the constitution and federal law grant to his office.

What Obama can do, Trump can't undo

The latest example is the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.

That’s the Obama administration’s program to allow some young adults brought here illegally as children to obtain what amounts to legal status and a work permit.

Let me say that I believe that such young adults should receive permanent legal status and a path to citizenship independent of any other policy consideration, such as beefed up border security. And the clemency should be universal, not limited as DACA provided. The young adult who drops out of high school to support a family merits legalization as fully as one pursuing a college education.

The Trump administration rescinded DACA. The Ninth Circuit found that what Obama could create by executive action Trump cannot undo by executive action.

Court's rationale: A bigot can't do that

The decision is pained to claim that it is not in fact so holding. That it is merely finding that the way in which the Trump administration went about abolishing the program, and the reasons that it gave, were defective.

The pettifogging in which the decision engages to erect this façade is almost laughable. The decision ponders deeply the difference between citing “discretion” in taking action, compared to citing “authority” to do so. The Sophists had nothing on federal judges.

The game, however, is given away at the end. A concurring opinion, by Judge John Owens, agrees that the Trump administration is barred from rescinding DACA, but not for the pettifogging reasons. According to him, Trump and his administration have exhibited “racial animus” and thus cannot take this action.

In a footnote, the other two judges on the panel write: “We do not disagree with the reasoning of Judge Owen’s concurring opinion.”

In other words, it would not matter what process the Trump administration used or what reasons it cited. According to the judges, Trump is a bigot and therefore cannot be permitted to take action another president would be permitted to take.

They've used that on Trump before

This is the same rationale federal judges used to strike down Trump’s travel bans on immigration from some countries.

In this case, there is an explicit statute granting the president, any president, the authority to ban any foreigner, or any group or class of foreigners, from entry to the United States for whatever reason the president deems it advisable.

The judges again found that Trump could not be permitted to do what any other president could do because they determined that he was a bigot. The U.S. Supreme Court put an end to such psychoanalysis from the bench and let most of the travel ban go into effect.

Authority shouldn't depend on character

The American people elected Donald Trump president. The Trump presidency grows more tiresome every day.

But he is the president. Under our constitutional order, he has the right to exercise the same authority over the same things as anyone else whom the American people choose to entrust with that position.

In our constitutional order, the power of the president is circumscribed by the constitution and federal law, not the opinion of judges about the character and behavior of the present occupant.
 
Cohen isn’t going to jail for campaign finance crimes. They tied that in with the fraud charges for appearance.
It’s like getting charged for vehicular homicide and the prosecutor throwing in a tail light out in the charge.
It’s only in there to tie him to Trump, they are trying to keep this investigation over his head so he won’t wreck their house of cards.
Exactly my point.
 
Man they are going ape shit.

This is huuuuuggggeeeee.

From WaPo


The lawsuit was initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who describes himself as a tea party conservative, with support from 18 GOP counterparts and a governor. The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress “does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”


As part of a tax overhaul a year ago, congressional Republicans pushed through a change in which that ACA penalty will be eliminated, starting in January. The lawsuit argues that, with the enforcement of the insurance requirement gone, there is no longer a tax so the law no longer is constitutional.

“Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall,” the lawsuit said.

The appeal goes to the 5th circuit. I read that's heavy R, but I really don't know.

If it goes back to SCOTUS, what does Roberts say about the tax?

My question is and I may not be understanding everything. Will citizens who paid the penalty in the past be able to file claims for restitution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FusterCluck
48064253_2285283428356226_6446876856258920448_n.jpg
 
Man they are going ape shit.

This is huuuuuggggeeeee.

From WaPo


The lawsuit was initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who describes himself as a tea party conservative, with support from 18 GOP counterparts and a governor. The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress “does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”


As part of a tax overhaul a year ago, congressional Republicans pushed through a change in which that ACA penalty will be eliminated, starting in January. The lawsuit argues that, with the enforcement of the insurance requirement gone, there is no longer a tax so the law no longer is constitutional.

“Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall,” the lawsuit said.

The appeal goes to the 5th circuit. I read that's heavy R, but I really don't know.

If it goes back to SCOTUS, what does Roberts say about the tax?
This and many other things coming out is probably why Dems are going so hard after Trump and company. Once he get more judges in place and the constitution is once again being followed, Dems will lose their grip on the poor and minorities because they will begin to realize just who it has been that has been keeping them down. (Hopefully for their sake).
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat and ymmot31
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT