It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Always Been Dirty’: Nearly Every Organization Associated With Trump Under Investigation

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
Trump's PR is that he embodies the American ideals, however many of Trump's EO's have been ruled unconstitutional and blocked.

By radical activist judges, later overruled by the Supreme Court, yes.


Is a 'true American' someone who ignores the constitution, despite taking oath specifically to uphold it above all else?

By all means, provide some examples of Trump specifically ignoring the Constitution.


The EO's ruled unconstitutional are unconstitutional.

How about we start there?




posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The EO's ruled unconstitutional are unconstitutional.

Except when they're not.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken delusion that a ruling of 'unconstitutional' from some radical left wing lower court judge means anything beyond what it is - an opinion of a (radical left wing) lower court judge.

Many of these rulings are themselves unconstitutional, in that they are an unlawful attempt to impede the lawful execution of the duties of the Office of President because ... orange man bad.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
The EO's ruled unconstitutional are unconstitutional.

Except when they're not.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken delusion that a ruling of 'unconstitutional' from some radical left wing lower court judge means anything beyond what it is - an opinion of a (radical left wing) lower court judge.

Many of these rulings are themselves unconstitutional, in that they are an unlawful attempt to impede the lawful execution of the duties of the Office of President because ... orange man bad.


So, a court ruling that defines constitutionality, is itself unconstitutional? It's some sort of semantic infinity mirror trick?

No wonder people believe Trump.




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
So, a court ruling that defines constitutionality, is itself unconstitutional?

Ok, my wording was bad, guess your style is rubbing off...

But are you seriously suggesting that Judges can make any decision they want, for whatever reason, with no aco#ability?

Judges should be held to a much higher standard, and one of the major shortcomings of our Constitution is the lack of civilian non-lawyer judicial oversight.

The whole concept of 'judicial independence' needs to be revisited, and rogue judges who ignore the law and the facts and issue rulings based on their biased notions should not only be easily removed from office, they should be prosecuted.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
So, a court ruling that defines constitutionality, is itself unconstitutional?

Ok, my wording was bad, guess your style is rubbing off...

But are you seriously suggesting that Judges can make any decision they want, for whatever reason, with no aco#ability?

Judges should be held to a much higher standard, and one of the major shortcomings of our Constitution is the lack of civilian non-lawyer judicial oversight.

The whole concept of 'judicial independence' needs to be revisited, and rogue judges who ignore the law and the facts and issue rulings based on their biased notions should not only be easily removed from office, they should be prosecuted.


How do judges arrive at their decisions?

There is always room for improvement in the process of adjudication.

It should probably come from the top down, from the POTUS and the Senate who appoint the Supreme Court judges.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
How do judges arrive at their decisions?

Sorry... that is how it is supposed to work. The reality is, while many judges try their best to be unbiased and base all of their decisions on the law and the facts, there are a significant number of activist judges who couldn't care less what the law or the rules of the court say, especially where issues important to the Left are concerned.


There is always room for improvement in the process of adjudication.

As I said before, the problem is there is no real, reliable process of accountability, not in some defined process of how something is supposed to work.


It should probably come from the top down, from the POTUS and the Senate who appoint the Supreme Court judges.

No, as I said, it should be a completely civilian review board, at the local level, totally outside the control of any government agency, aside maybe from a very limited power to prosecute potential criminal misconduct by any member of the board. Members should be locally elected, and each Board should have jurisdiction over any/all judges whose courtroom exists within their jurisdiction - and this should include all federal judges (except Supreme Court Judges as well as State/Local.

For the Supreme Court, how about a 'Supreme' Review Board, formed from members of all of the other local committees, elected by the same. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest one from each State, and one from DC (potential tie breaker vote).

There should also be one major restriction on qualification for membership on these committees: you can not be or ever have been a lawyer, and no lawyers should ever be allowed inside the committees when they are in session.

This would hopefully avoid the joke that the grand jury has become since it was hijacked by government prosecutors a long time ago. It used to be that government lawyers (prosecutors) weren't allowed anywhere near them - now they lead them around by the nose (hence the saying that the government can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich).

Of course, all of this would require a Constitutional Amendment, so its only value is for my 'Perfect Constitution' project.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

And you can't see the reason for that?

Abuse of the legal system in true dirt-people socialist fashion.

Just wait. The socialist scum bags are going to be so surprised



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join