So called judges?

Anything he doesn't like is SO UNFAIR! Who is this spoiled little brat?

That judge was selected by a Republican president. Show some f^ing respect you little 'wanna be dick-tater!

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/afd3a573-8a6f-3af3-a9f2-d860b9c253b9/gop-sen.-sasse-doesn%26%2339%3Bt.html

 

The judge is a political left wing leaning hack. He'll be shut down after appeal. Good for Trump, Bad for liberal Judge(s) who compromise national security.
#draintheswamp

 

Good grief did I ever peg you when I dubbed you the idiot boy!

Yes, we have separation of powers but a federal judge or even an entire circuit is not empowered to over-ride the actions of the executive. Why? Because the executive is elected and therefore accountable to the people. Judges aren't so the Constitution limits the power of the judiciary. Of the 3 branches the courts are designed to be the weakest since they are unelected and often serve life time appointments.

It is not the role of judges to play super executive or super legislator. Not their role to establish law or policy for this nation.

The ruling of the judge was at painfully obvious odds with the law as passed by the legislature and with a SCOTUS precedent. This little pip squeak judge WAY overstepped his legal bounds. Just because a cop wearing a badge does something doesn't make it lawful. Same for judges. Just because they wear a black robe and have an inflated and unconstitutional opinion of their own power doesn't mean their actions are lawful or should be followed by a duly elected president!!!!!!!

The judiciary is way out of control and is more of a threat to our republic than anything Trump is likely to do even if he served for 20 years!

 

Learn to read, idiot boy! I plainly stated the facts: the judges actions contradicted both statute and SCOTUS precedent! The Judge is trying to write new law, not Trump, you fool!

And in our lifetimes it is the judiciary that has plainly gotten out of control.

How do you think we got gay marriage? The court "made" law which is not their role under the constitution. What a clueless tyranny enabling dolt you are.

And where in the constitution are the courts given power in matters of foreign affairs or immigration? Hmmm?

 

If you're robbed by 4 thieves instead of just one, it doesn't make it legal. All 4 judges are at odds with clear statute and SCOTUS precedent. That doesn't change, idiot boy, regardless of how many black robed tyrants might agree.

And, ah dude, I hate to break the news to you but gay marriage was imposed nationally by an out of control tyrannical 5 members of the SCOTUS. So your babble there is incomprehensible.

There's a short school bus that runs through your area. Be sure to get on it in the morning.

 

All you've proven is that you're an ignorant, stupid fool.

Your claim of 36 states issuing same sex marriage licenses prior to Obergefell is completely false. Actually only a handful of states had issued gay marriage licenses and even fewer had done it based upon a democratic legislative or referendum process.

And the SCOTUS is not a super legislature or a constitutional convention. It has no legitimate suthority to create law or to determine public policy for hundreds of millions of American citizens. You have to be a fool of immense proportions to think that 5 people should be able to overrule the majority of roughly 350 million.

You are so ignorant that even if you weren't stupid you still couldn't come to correct conclusions. You are also a fan boy of tyranny and destruction of our constitution!
But investigative journalism and the first amendment you cry! You are truly pathetic and clueless.

 

Let me try to put this in terms that even you can understand. Do you think it would be appropriate for a 5-4 vote by SCOTUS to outlaw weed across the nation as it did to legalize so-called gay marriage?

Is it their place to set drug policy for 350 million people? Or is it the role of the people or their elected representatives to make laws and set policy?

Yeah, you've been painted into a corner yet again by insightful questions which demolish your absurd contentions.

Now are you going to play the coward and run or are you going to answer the question like a man?

 

Good grief! Once again you manage to make a fool of yourself and a coward all at the same time.

The question you were confronted with is do you think it's appropriate for 5 unelected SCOTUS justices to set policy and "make" law for 350 million people.

When it comes to issues as fundamental as human life and marriage then we need one national policy on that. It's impractical and inherently problematic to have different policies in different states on those issues.

Whether you like it or not, the Feds have a right to set drug policy. while I could live with each individual state making its own policy on weed, I am absolutely ok with the Feds outlawing it which they have done and since that is the case, federal law will trump state law.

So quit babbling and answer my question. We're a long way from discussing state's rights and federalism. You haven't even come around to the foundational proposition that the people or their elected representatives should set law and policy in this nation and not courts, not federal courts, not state courts.

Right now you're on the record of being a tyranny fan boy. I tried to get you to see the light a long time ago when the courts undermined the clear will of the people and your state constitution when the courts acted tyrannically and overturned Cali's Prop 8. But since you were ok with the outcome, you thought throwing in with tyranny was cool.

So don't talk to me about state's right when the people of your state were told they couldn't amend their constitution through a perfectly legal and established mechanism.

 

No, you just live enmeshed in cowardice and stupidity.

You didn't answer my question about SCOTUS. Are you afraid to? Of course you are. I've painted you into the dunce corner again.

If Roe is overturned it will go back to the states. I'm talking about something else.

Does the federal law forbid right to die laws? Hmmmm? Of it did, it would Trump state law. You lose again.