I will let the room decide from this thread the accuracy (or lack) of your claims.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
No Kings Rallies
16,301 Views |
299 Replies |
Last: 22 hrs ago by Harrison Bergeron
TexasScientist said:historian said:
Fascists don't need logic, consistency, principles, or any of the usual things one would have. They only have TDS and that's all they need. And it's why almost everything they say are stupid lies. They are also hypocrites of the highest order with double standards everywhere.
You just concisely described the Trump regime. Bravo!
The Trump administration does not suffer from TDS.
Nice try, but the projection does not work here.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. There is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Leftist judges ruling in a strictly partisan manner while contradicting the constitution are not examples of an independent by judiciary. In essence, they are trying to ignore Article II in its entirety, along with significant other parts such as the Bill of Rights. This should be obvious. The illegitimacy of their actions is made clear by how often they are overruled by higher courts, including SCOTUS, and by the absurdity of many of their arguments. They are also revealing how woefully unqualified they are to be judges.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You clearly can't comprehend how our government is structured under the Constitution. Its concept is simple but for some reason over your head. Judges in our constitutional system are not kings. The three branches of government were set up for the very purpose of preventing kings. That system is being tested now, and we'll see if it holds.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
historian said:
Leftist judges ruling in a strictly partisan manner while contradicting the constitution are not examples of an independent by judiciary. In essence, they are trying to ignore Article II in its entirety, along with significant other parts such as the Bill of Rights. This should be obvious. The illegitimacy of their actions is made clear by how often they are overruled by higher courts, including SCOTUS, and by the absurdity of many of their arguments. They are also revealing how woefully unqualified they are to be judges.
Objectively, the same can be said of right wing judges. That's why we have an appellate process, to take those situations into account. My experience, and observation with the judicial system is that most federal judges try to accurately apply the law in an impartial manner. Judges typically don't like to be reversed on appeal. It doesn't look well for them. That's not always the case, and in those instances where they don't follow the law, due to bias or error, they are usually reversed on appeal. Obviously no system is perfect and there will be some travesties of justice, but by and large the system works. There has been no better alternative offered as a solution.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
historian said:
Leftist judges ruling in a strictly partisan manner while contradicting the constitution are not examples of an independent by judiciary. In essence, they are trying to ignore Article II in its entirety, along with significant other parts such as the Bill of Rights. This should be obvious. The illegitimacy of their actions is made clear by how often they are overruled by higher courts, including SCOTUS, and by the absurdity of many of their arguments. They are also revealing how woefully unqualified they are to be judges.
It's another one of the weird, unprincipled liberal arguments.
Yesterday they will tell you the Courts are partisan hacks and should be ignored, and then tomorrow they'll tell you they are the only true form of democracy.
The fact they don't get the irony says a lot about the average IQ of the TDSer.
TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
EaCan anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You clearly can't comprehend how our government is structured under the Constitution. Its concept is simple but for some reason over your head. Judges in our constitutional system are not kings. The three branches of government were set up for the very purpose of preventing kings. That system is being tested now, and we'll see if it holds.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it.
Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
TexasScientist said:historian said:
Leftist judges ruling in a strictly partisan manner while contradicting the constitution are not examples of an independent by judiciary. In essence, they are trying to ignore Article II in its entirety, along with significant other parts such as the Bill of Rights. This should be obvious. The illegitimacy of their actions is made clear by how often they are overruled by higher courts, including SCOTUS, and by the absurdity of many of their arguments. They are also revealing how woefully unqualified they are to be judges.
Objectively, the same can be said of right wing judges. That's why we have an appellate process, to take those situations into account. My experience, and observation with the judicial system is that most federal judges try to accurately apply the law in an impartial manner. Judges typically don't like to be reversed on appeal. It doesn't look well for them. That's not always the case, and in those instances where they don't follow the law, due to bias or error, they are usually reversed on appeal. Obviously no system is perfect and there will be some travesties of justice, but by and large the system works. There has been no better alternative offered as a solution.
This year, Leftist judges are taking this kind of abuse to new levels and apparently don't care if they are overturned. One only needs to use a little common sense and knowledge of the constitution to see that. The fact that most of these cases are overturned and they continue to make the same rulings, sometimes in direct contradiction of an earlier SCOTUS ruling on the same issue.
It's all about extreme TDS and an attempted judicial coup. Thankfully, Trump repeatedly outsmarts them and the higher courts continue to overrule them. The result is real justice instead of the hyper partisan injustice the Left has been perpetrating for years.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron said:historian said:
Leftist judges ruling in a strictly partisan manner while contradicting the constitution are not examples of an independent by judiciary. In essence, they are trying to ignore Article II in its entirety, along with significant other parts such as the Bill of Rights. This should be obvious. The illegitimacy of their actions is made clear by how often they are overruled by higher courts, including SCOTUS, and by the absurdity of many of their arguments. They are also revealing how woefully unqualified they are to be judges.
It's another one of the weird, unprincipled liberal arguments.
Yesterday they will tell you the Courts are partisan hacks and should be ignored, and then tomorrow they'll tell you they are the only true form of democracy.
The fact they don't get the irony says a lot about the average IQ of the TDSer.
It also reveals that they really don't know (or care) what democracy is or that the US is a republic. Federal judges are not elected, an essential element of any form of representative govt.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
True. Judicial review came several years after ratification, as a result of Marbury v Madison, although it was mentioned by Hamilton in Federalist #78. But the Leftists hate the Federalist Papers, if they even know about them, because they make strong arguments in favor of constitutional government, meaning limited and Republican government.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
historian said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
True. Judicial review came several years after ratification, as a result of Marbury v Madison, although it was mentioned by Hamilton in Federalist #78. But the Leftists hate the Federalist Papers, if they even know about them, because they make strong arguments in favor of constitutional government, meaning limited and Republican government.
Given he believes the Earth is not round, Flat Earth completely misses the point as usual.
I have explained it but probably using multi-syllabic words ...
It is ironic and the continual lack of self-awareness by radical leftists that they claim to march with NO KINGS while effectively celebrating every time an single, unelected person makes law for the land without consequence. I knew they were now smart, but how not smart is a new thing.
(I did not have the patience to Flat Earth the difference between the result of Marbury and the late 20tth Century innovation of the "nationwide injunction." He'll never figure that out)
Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
Flat Earth Boy - You need to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I'm not talking about the incomplete version of the Constitution you'll find your Trump Bible.
The doctrine of judicial review arises out of the Constitution, and is a necessary component of a functioning government under the Constitution. It was spedifically addressed in the Federalist Papers.
Several parts of the Constitution logically require courts to decide whether laws violate the Constitution:
Article VI, the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land," and judges are bound by it. This means if a law conflicts with the Constitution, judges must prioritize the Constitution.
Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases "arising under this Constitution." You can't interpret the Constitution in a case without assessing whether laws or actions violate it.
Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. This implies they must refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 specifically upheld the doctrine.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:TexasScientist said:Harrison Bergeron said:
Can anyone explain why:
1. Idiots that protest "No Kings" celebrate unelected judges over-ruling democratic institutions ?
2. Queers for Palestine.
Is there a leftist who doesn't eat paint chips?
It's not a left or right issue. Clearly you don't understand the Constitution, or the purpose of three co-equal branches of government, or the purposes and reasons for having an appointed judiciary. This system is what has made this country the great power and unique bastion of freedom in the world. Don't be so eager to trash it for something that appears more convenient at the moment. There is nothing out there that is any better, including the Russian and Hungarian, Arabic forms of government that Trumpets seem to admire.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
The people who claim they want "NO KINGS" celebrate kings if the king rules how they want. The problem continues to be when the emotional histrionics of the left collide with reason and logic, confusion occurs. You either have no idea what is a king or you're fine with "kings" as long as he rules in the way you want. It's not complicated.
The really issue is "No Kings" is more Orwellian stupidity from radical leftists.
Oh I understand. What you're advocating for is unfettered authority for Trump. You don't like or understand the need for judicial review as a check on power, and to serve as constitutional guardrails. Trump unrestrained is the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia. There is very little rhyme, reason, or logic to anything Trump does. No other president, outside of wartime, has asserted extra constitutional authority more than Trump.
No you idiot. I am explaining the irony of someone claiming "No Kings" celebrating when an unelected, lifetime-appointed single person unilaterally makes laws for the entire nation. That literally is the definition of a king. It is almost as ironic as your screen name. As I noted, you LWNJs love Kings you just hate Trump - but the "No Kings" gets the overweight, geriatric white womenz more worked up.
There is no irony. The Constitution creates an independent judiciary, providing for unelected judges who interpret the law, with lifetime appointments, so they are free from political pressure and undue influence - a concept Trump hates. The judge you complain about is subject to appeal and judicial review; a king is not. TherI we is recourse with a judge's ruling, there is none with a king's. That literally is not the definition of a king. RWNJs like you prefer an autocrat wanna be king who has no check or restraint on power. You should have your wife explain why ad hominem misogynistic comments directed at women don't impress anyone - if she still tolerates you.
Flat Earth - I cannot understand or explain it to you. When you can figure out how to think and lay out arguments, I would welcome the debate. However, whatever you posted is so non-sensical that as much as I tried to prove again that you're basically a ****ing rheghard your response was so non-sensical that that was not even possible. That is how stupid are you.
Flat Earth Boy - You can't explain anything because you don't understand our constitutional form of government.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
Flat Earth Boy - You need to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I'm not talking about the incomplete version of the Constitution you'll find your Trump Bible.
The doctrine of judicial review arises out of the Constitution, and is a necessary component of a functioning government under the Constitution. It was spedifically addressed in the Federalist Papers.
Several parts of the Constitution logically require courts to decide whether laws violate the Constitution:
Article VI, the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land," and judges are bound by it. This means if a law conflicts with the Constitution, judges must prioritize the Constitution.
Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases "arising under this Constitution." You can't interpret the Constitution in a case without assessing whether laws or actions violate it.
Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. This implies they must refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 specifically upheld the doctrine.
Flat Earth - the fact that you think I am even talking about how the government works shows you how much the discussion passed right over your head.
And since you don't seem to understand how the Constitution works, I'll give you a hint: judicial review is not in it. Just like birds are real (sorry in advance if I blew your mind).
The phrase "judicial review" or anything like it is NOT in the constitution. The constitution only says that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. At most, Hamilton suggested it in Federalist #78. Marburg b Madison established the doctrine.
One could argue they the idea is implied but it is a bit of a stretch. Since we have had it for 200+ years it's not going away. It has proved useful many times but it has also been abused repeatedly.
The Courts ard not the Final authority. We have three co-equal branches, each checking the power of the others. We US is a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.
One could argue they the idea is implied but it is a bit of a stretch. Since we have had it for 200+ years it's not going away. It has proved useful many times but it has also been abused repeatedly.
The Courts ard not the Final authority. We have three co-equal branches, each checking the power of the others. We US is a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Just to play devils advocate here…. Judicial review allows the branches to check each other…. But also does not provide a way to enforce it…. See President Jackson….
historian said:
The phrase "judicial review" or anything like it is NOT in the constitution. The constitution only says that the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. At most, Hamilton suggested it in Federalist #78. Marburg b Madison established the doctrine.
One could argue they the idea is implied but it is a bit of a stretch. Since we have had it for 200+ years it's not going away. It has proved useful many times but it has also been abused repeatedly.
The Courts ard not the Final authority. We have three co-equal branches, each checking the power of the others. We US is a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.
Flat Earth clearly isn't firing the fastest synapses, but it seemed obvious - only a Democrat could march for "No Kings" and then cheer for a king as represented by one , unelected person making laws for the nation.