Trumps "Big Beautiful Bill"

[neurosis]

They lost but they wont' accept it so they resort to lawlessness.

The irony in that sentence.

Why have we all become so conveniently blind to lawlessness depending on which party is in office or who is doing the lawbreaking.

[YoDoug]

The irony in that sentence.

Why have we all become so conveniently blind to lawlessness depending on which party is in office or who is doing the lawbreaking.

OK, please list some of the lawlessness that republican lawmakers engaged in when Biden took office.. I'll wait.......

[neurosis]

OK, please list some of the lawlessness that republican lawmakers engaged in when Biden took office.. I'll wait.......

When did I add a "when Biden took office" qualifier in there?

I have to ask, who do you think is breaking the law right now?

[YoDoug]

When did I add a "when Biden took office" qualifier in there?

I have to ask, who do you think is breaking the law right now?

As I have said, Activist judges making "rulings" out of thin air without and constitutional basis or legal precedence for the purpose of blocking what Trump Admin is trying to do. Judges rule on existing law, they do not create it.

[neurosis]

As I have said, Activist judges making "rulings" out of thin air without and constitutional basis or legal precedence for the purpose of blocking what Trump Admin is trying to do. Judges rule on existing law, they do not create it.

Are you sure that they're "breaking the law"? I thought you were going to bring up the Judge what was arrested for allegedly helping an illegal evade arrest. 

Do you think this was activism by a AG?

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-ag-ken-paxton-sued-the-biden-administration-106-times-21577405

[YoDoug]

Do you think this was activism by a judge?

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-ag-ken-paxton-sued-the-biden-administration-106-times-21577405

Are you intentionally being difficult today? The problem is not the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuits, it's the judges making rulings without any constitutional basis to support those rulings. Paxton is not a judge, he does not get to make the rulings. If he brings a suit and shows valid reason and a judge agrees, then so be it. If he files a suit that doesn't have valid constitutional reason and a friendly judge rules in his favor anyways, that would be a problem.

[rdshear]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/number-injunctions-halting-trump-policies-trounces-predecessors-double

Aww, you had to go and reference a Fox News link...  Here come the Lefties... 1, 2, 3...

[neurosis]

Are you intentionally being difficult today? The problem is not the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuits, it's the judges making rulings without any constitutional basis to support those rulings. Paxton is not a judge, he does not get to make the rulings. If he brings a suit and shows valid reason and a judge agrees, then so be it. If he files a suit that doesn't have valid constitutional reason and a friendly judge rules in his favor anyways, that would be a problem.

Yes, I am. Mostly because I can't believe that someone who considers themselves to be a conservative, would even remotely think that neutering our US courts, leaving Trump to literally get away with anything he wants, is worth considering. I know which side of that I'm on and I'm going to laugh when it comes back to bite you guys in the ass.

And btw, are you sure that those judges are "breaking the law"?

[Newbeeee™]

The irony in that sentence.

Why have we all become so conveniently blind to lawlessness depending on which party is in office or who is doing the lawbreaking.

"We'
 

[neurosis]

"We'
 

I say we, because I'm sure that I have done it too.

[YoDoug]

Yes, I am. Mostly because I can't believe that someone who considers themselves to be a conservative, would even remotely think that neutering our US courts, leaving Trump to literally get away with anything he wants, is worth considering. I know which side of that I'm on and I'm going to laugh when it comes back to bite you guys in the ass.

And btw, are you sure that those judges are "breaking the law"?

I never said I agree. I said it was an over reaction. I also said I think the judiciary is out of control. I never proposed a solution, just that I see why they are trying to do away with repercussions of not following judicial orders.

Technically there is a constitutional process to impeach and remove sitting federal judges. However it requires the same trials as impeaching a president so it would never be reasonable to think the house and senate could bring impeachment against dozens of judges over stepping their roles. Because of this they rule with no fear of reprimand.

[neurosis]

I never said I agree. I said it was an over reaction. I also said I think the judiciary is out of control. I never proposed a solution,

Apologies. Based on your "but something needs to be done" comment, I thought you were insinuating that this is a necessary evil.

I don't know that I agree that every decision based on "irreparable harm" is "illegal". The SCOTUS just upheld a decision that was based on just that. I haven't gone through every decision since Trump took office. It's too hard to keep up.     

[YoDoug]

Apologies. Based on your "but something needs to be done" comment, I thought you were insinuating that this is a necessary evil.

I don't know that I agree that every decision based on "irreparable harm" is "illegal". The SCOTUS just upheld a decision that was based on just that. I haven't gone through every decision since Trump took office. It's too hard to keep up.     

If the "irreparable harm" is not based off of law or legal precedence, then it should not be. Even if it makes sense. When you open the door to activist rulings then anything goes. If a company in my town starts to make/offer competition to me what stops me from donating to a local judge, then having that judge shut them down because it would cause me irreparable harm to compete. You see you either live in a country ruled by laws or you live in a country ruled by an elite class that controls the judiciary.

[neurosis]

If the "irreparable harm" is not based off of law or legal precedence, then it should not be.

I had to look it up, because I'm not a judge or attorney.

""Irreparable harm" is a well-established legal concept rooted in both law and legal precedent. It refers to harm or injury that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages or other traditional legal remedies, making it a necessary requirement for courts to grant equitable relief such as preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders."

Why have decisions based on this all of a sudden been considered "activist"?   No, I'm not trying to be difficult. Since I don't get my information from the same places, I've not seen this defined as being illegal, activist, or without precedent. 

[neurosis]

I can't wait until we get into the "how much does the big beautiful bill add to the deficit" area of conversation.