FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 3:00 pm
...the president lacks the authority to apply global sanctions...
What you call "sanctions" are merely tariffs. They're imposed within, not outside, America.
If that were true, then NO president would have any power to control the economy of his/her own country. And for sure, Dems don't believe that; they believe the president has that authority and much more...if he's a Dem. But none at all, not even the power of, say, securing the borders or issuing executive orders, or reducing the bureaucracy...if he's a Repub.
My bad, as you have spotted, I did intend tariffs when I wrote sanctions, good spot, thanks.
No probs. The word "sanctions" makes it appear external, whereas it's an internal matter. The US can set for itself what it accepts within its borders...and whom it accepts, of course.
Naturally you are wrong about the separation of powers though.
The courts don't (yet) agree with you, apparently. The tariffs on steel, aluminium and automobiles remain, even under the ruling. And the rest of the activist judges' rulings are currently suspended, pending appeal. So we'll have to see what comes out of that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 3:24 pm
What you call "sanctions" are merely tariffs. They're imposed within, not outside, America.
If that were true, then NO president would have any power to control the economy of his/her own country. And for sure, Dems don't believe that; they believe the president has that authority and much more...if he's a Dem. But none at all, not even the power of, say, securing the borders or issuing executive orders, or reducing the bureaucracy...if he's a Repub.
My bad, as you have spotted, I did intend tariffs when I wrote sanctions, good spot, thanks.
No probs. The word "sanctions" makes it appear external, whereas it's an internal matter. The US can set for itself what it accepts within its borders...and whom it accepts, of course.
Naturally you are wrong about the separation of powers though.
The courts don't (yet) agree with you, apparently. The tariffs on steel, aluminium and automobiles remain, even under the ruling. And the rest of the activist judges' rulings are currently suspended, pending appeal. So we'll have to see what comes out of that.
In America, when an appeal court is asked to set a stay on an order from a lower court, they will typically do so as long as other party does no suffer any loss. In this case the stay is awarded because the administration has already agreed in writing to refund with interest any tariffs collected outside of constitutional authority. This is very unusual, normally the state would avoid the additional expense by allowing the stay to stand.
The case in question is about the limits of presidential power to declare such emergencies on non-specified random global bases. The tariffs that are under threat of a stay include those levied against territories that aren't even countries but happen to have top level internet domains and which don't even trade with America. In contrast, the protective tariffs on automobiles and steel are business as usual, I think every president since Reagan has applied tariffs to automobiles, and most of the to steel also. They are bad policy but not unusual or illegal.
This is still a situation where the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master. That's an unhealthy attitude to take to the rule of law and the separation of powers. The people doing this ought to show more restraint and learn to take a loss without being pissy little bitchbabies.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:14 pm
...the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master.
No, actually. An “activist judge” is one who, instead of making decisions impartially, based on the facts and on fairness, makes his decisions based on his own ideological commitments. Rather than measuring out justice, he’s attempting to impose an outcome that serves an ideological goal.
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:17 pm
then when the next democrat takes office, every republican judge needs to hamstring every thing he/she/it tries to do
we are long overdue for a lovely revolution...
go ahead and riot this summer democrats
-Imp
The problem, Imp, is that rioting is all Neo-Marxists know how to do. They don’t have the foggiest idea of how to construct a good society; they only know how to tear things down. So “revolution” is their stock-in-trade. Building is a thing you just see them never do, because they can’t. They’re useless at making things better. They’re only good at “deconstruction,” or “critique,” but not at being helpful.
The upshot is that revolutions will always serve only the destructive modus operandi of the Left. A conservative can’t win by revolution; he actually has to do something positive…improve things…have a good proposal…make things go forward. The Left knows nothing about that.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:14 pm
...the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master.
No, actually. An “activist judge” is one who, instead of making decisions impartially, based on the facts and on fairness, makes his decisions based on his own ideological commitments. Rather than measuring out justice, he’s attempting to impose an outcome that serves an ideological goal.
You really had to leave out half that sentence to be able to argue against it didn't you.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:14 pm
...the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master.
No, actually. An “activist judge” is one who, instead of making decisions impartially, based on the facts and on fairness, makes his decisions based on his own ideological commitments. Rather than measuring out justice, he’s attempting to impose an outcome that serves an ideological goal.
You really had to leave out half that sentence to be able to argue against it didn't you.
I just included the part that was necessary to address. There's no "master" implicated, save the ideology to which the judge is assumed to be addicted.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:55 pm
No, actually. An “activist judge” is one who, instead of making decisions impartially, based on the facts and on fairness, makes his decisions based on his own ideological commitments. Rather than measuring out justice, he’s attempting to impose an outcome that serves an ideological goal.
You really had to leave out half that sentence to be able to argue against it didn't you.
I just included the part that was necessary to address. There's no "master" implicated, save the ideology to which the judge is assumed to be addicted.
The master bit wasn't what you left out.... are you having memory issues?
This is still a situation where the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master.
The situation is that certain political actors, in this case Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, accuses impartial judges who are applying the law both as it is written and as it has been interpreted by judicial precedent of activism because his master is being thwarted.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri May 30, 2025 3:30 pm
MUST – STOP – TRUMP
Here’s how …
Just keep those activist judges busy. They have more power than the POTUS.
(Not according to the constitution.)
But they don't have any guns.
Something must be done about these courts. District courts and now international trade courts are starting to issue these nationwide injunctions that are overreaching, unlawful, and politically motivated. Sorry, rulings that dictate to the executive what it can do on foreign and immigration policy are not kosher. What’s next? District courts signing off on troop deployments?
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2657850
Why are you threatening judges with guns? Are you planning to 86 them? Are you a domestic terrorist?
No, those are descriptions of Democrats That Hate America, and their pet RINO's like Comey.
Must stop Trump is the prime directive of The Party of Hate, plus it's their only platform other than what they stole from Trump in the last campaign.
The point is, the Supreme Court's only juice is the acquiescence of the other two branches of government to the Supreme overreach being exercised not for judicial review, but to stymie The Executive Branch of government selected by the people, for the people, to carry out the promises made to the people.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri May 30, 2025 3:30 pm
MUST – STOP – TRUMP
Here’s how …
Just keep those activist judges busy. They have more power than the POTUS.
(Not according to the constitution.)
But they don't have any guns.
Why are you threatening judges with guns? Are you planning to 86 them? Are you a domestic terrorist?
No, those are descriptions of Democrats That Hate America, and their pet RINO's like Comey.
Must stop Trump is the prime directive of The Party of Hate, plus it's their only platform other than what they stole from Trump in the last campaign.
The point is, the Supreme Court's only juice is the acquiescence of the other two branches of government to the Supreme overreach being exercised not for judicial review, but to stymie The Executive Branch of government selected by the people, for the people, to carry out the promises made to the people.
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:17 pm
then when the next democrat takes office, every republican judge needs to hamstring every thing he/she/it tries to do
we are long overdue for a lovely revolution...
go ahead and riot this summer democrats
-Imp
The problem, Imp, is that rioting is all Neo-Marxists know how to do. They don’t have the foggiest idea of how to construct a good society; they only know how to tear things down. So “revolution” is their stock-in-trade. Building is a thing you just see them never do, because they can’t. They’re useless at making things better. They’re only good at “deconstruction,” or “critique,” but not at being helpful.
The upshot is that revolutions will always serve only the destructive modus operandi of the Left. A conservative can’t win by revolution; he actually has to do something positive…improve things…have a good proposal…make things go forward. The Left knows nothing about that.
You really had to leave out half that sentence to be able to argue against it didn't you.
I just included the part that was necessary to address. There's no "master" implicated, save the ideology to which the judge is assumed to be addicted.
The master bit wasn't what you left out....
I left out the nonsense and ranting bit...but you really didn't want me to bother with that anyway, did you?
This is still a situation where the only thing that makes a judge "activist" is perceived disloyalty to a master.
It's not. I explained why. So nothing that was even worthy of comment was left out.
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 4:17 pm
then when the next democrat takes office, every republican judge needs to hamstring every thing he/she/it tries to do
we are long overdue for a lovely revolution...
go ahead and riot this summer democrats
-Imp
The problem, Imp, is that rioting is all Neo-Marxists know how to do. They don’t have the foggiest idea of how to construct a good society; they only know how to tear things down. So “revolution” is their stock-in-trade. Building is a thing you just see them never do, because they can’t. They’re useless at making things better. They’re only good at “deconstruction,” or “critique,” but not at being helpful.
The upshot is that revolutions will always serve only the destructive modus operandi of the Left. A conservative can’t win by revolution; he actually has to do something positive…improve things…have a good proposal…make things go forward. The Left knows nothing about that.
Yes, and so is ginning them up. If you're a business pig, you simply use them to destroy your competition, so only the government-colluding monopolists, like Amazon, Blackrock and Soros, can survive the "revolution". It's the ordinary people that get trashed, and the ordinary neighbourhoods that are destroyed.
Just consider: how is any of the BLM-riot neighbourhoods "better" today, as a result of the Floyd riots? Or are they worse off than they ever were? Is not the answer quite obvious, even to those who live there?
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 8:06 am
...putting quotation marks around something I haven't said....
Quotation marks have different uses, in the English language. One is to quote; another is to signify a questionable or imprecise expression, regardless of who says it.
To show that this was not my belief to be taken literally. Yet you failed to notice.
So, as you can see with a scroll back over the last couple of pages if you are really into that shit, mister Can has tested my reasoning in this matter to the best of his abilities and failed.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 12:43 pm
Why are you threatening judges with guns? Are you planning to 86 them? Are you a domestic terrorist?
Give years ago, during the Summer of George Floyd, “the people” went on an astounding rampage and “the establishment” stood down. But here is the important part: many Democrats praised this activism and destructive violence. They encouraged it as it was happening.
There, you can see the evidence of and the potential for violence in this nation. I will grant that some of it was anarchic and of a mob-nature. But then, according to numerous writing here, so too are those who “support Trump” part of a mindless mob mentality.
The ransacking of the Capitol, by comparison to the extended violence, looting, social upheaval etc that developed out of the GF Summer was really in another category.
Steve Bannon predicts that the nation is heading to a “Constitutional crisis” because of the Administration’s assault on (as he and they say) the Deep State. It is not an incoherent position.
I do not myself know what to think of the term “activist judges” nor am I adept enough with American politics to understand the profound factionalism in the Establishment. (Like those writing here my viewvis “surface”).
But definitely there is potential for violence. Some have stated we are in the first phases if civil crisis (or civil political war).
Aside from the content of my original response:
They are using the term "activist judges" to signify any judge who dares rule in favour of the law rather than the regime. That quote refers to a panel of judges on a specialised international trade court who ruled, in line with the constitution and centuries of law, that the president lacks the authority to apply global sanctions. This is just a matter of legal fact, Trump cannot win this case on the merits, facts or law because all go against him, so he wants to win it by not being held to the law or constrained by balances of power. Like his dictator buddies aren't.
The other "activist judges" have all been simply holding Trump to the law of the land. None of them invented new law or procedure and none of his appeals has ever worked out because of that. The only time new law was created was when his pet supreme court awarded him special magical immunity.
It's worth noting that you are wildly underplaying the intent of that crowd that overran the Capitol. They were there to overthrow a democratic election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Now similar hordes are back, with similar intent, and this time they are overthrowing the constitutional balance of power. They will take this further, it will get really bad.
