• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon to deploy 5,000 troops to Mexico border in major escalation

TU Curmudgeon said:
Unfortunately "laws" are NOT the same things as "rules".

Mr. Trump has the ability to "change rules" but, no matter how tight you squint your eyes and chant "I wish, I wish, I wish" does NOT have the ability to change "laws".



That's what Mr. Trump says. I rather suspect that the courts will say something different.
Click to expand...
Trump can define how the laws are to be enforced. Obama and many other presidents have done it.

I suspect the libs will judge shop in the lower courts. They can't judge shop in the SCOTUS however. Trump won on the travel ban and I suspect he will win on this also.
 
SLC said:
Trump can define how the laws are to be enforced. Obama and many other presidents have done it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what you were complaining that Mr. Obama did while loudly proclaiming how "unconstitutional" it was?

SLC said:
I suspect the libs will judge shop in the lower courts. They can't judge shop in the SCOTUS however. Trump won on the travel ban and I suspect he will win on this also.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are saying that Mr. Trump doesn't need to "shop" because he's already bought the whole store.

Tell me, what is the legally mandated number of Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Let's, just as a theoretical exercise, imagine that, in 2020, the Democrats manage to obtain majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives as well as have their candidate elected President (yes, I know that that's a silly example because Mr. Trump is going to be re-elected in 2020, and again in 2024 after he issues an EO declaring that the "Presidential Term Limits" referred to in the 22nd Amendment only applied during the next Presidential election because the Founding Fathers never had any Original Intent to limit the total time a person could be the President of the United States of America - but let's suppose that it does happen) - what is your position going to be (see assumed political make up of the government of the United States of America) if the then President nominates 15 "liberal" jurists to become Associate Justices of the Supreme Court AND the Senate confirms all of them?

Before answering, please bear in mind that it is your current position that it is 100% proper to "pack" the Supreme Court in order to ensure that the Supreme Court always rules in your favour.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
what is the legally mandated number of Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
Click to expand...
I think this was tried already, just after the the "Depression", the president tried to increase the number of Associate Justices on the Supreme Court, couldn't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom