Will Trump go full 'Andrew Jackson' on the Courts?

[Cyber Liberty]

All right...let's turn down the volume a bit.  We're all friends here...we've gotten so use to fighting the Kremlin crowd over at FR that it's become second nature to even fight amongst ourselves here over lower priority issues, like Andy Jackson.

It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.

[Kamaji]

It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.

It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.

[Bigun]

Disposing the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

[catfish1957]

It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

[Kamaji]

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

Please demonstrate the falsity of the quoted statement.  Is it, or is it not, the case that what people become is generally dependent on what they intend to become?

[Cyber Liberty]

That's 2 offensive and blatantly false statements on this matter today.   The Mods must be in a good mood today.

And I don't consider myself MAGA.

My mood was good when I woke up this morning.

[catfish1957]

Please demonstrate the falsity of the quoted statement.  Is it, or is it not, the case that what people become is generally dependent on what they intend to become?

Quote from: Cyber Liberty on Today at 11:32:16 am
It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.  (likely said with sarcasm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.  (your offensive comment)


Making this comment once is offensive, twice puts you in the same category as the left who call us these names all the time.

[Kamaji]

Quote from: Cyber Liberty on Today at 11:32:16 am
It's got me wondering if us Trump supporters are considered Communists, or Nazis.  (likely said with sarcasm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of what they seem to be bent on turning themselves into.  (your offensive comment)


Making this comment once is offensive, twice puts you in the same category as the left who call us these names all the time.

Now that's an offensive statement because it's just another false charge of being a leftist.  No wonder so many long-time posters keep leaving.  Anyone seen @PeteS in CA recently?

You still haven't demonstrated the falsity of my statement.  Whether a person will become a communist or nazi depends, as it always has, on whether that person intends to become a communist or nazi.  It's a statement that is almost self-evidently true.

Prove otherwise.

[catfish1957]

Now that's an offensive statement because it's just another false charge of being a leftist.  No wonder so many long-time posters keep leaving.  Anyone seen @PeteS in CA recently?

You still haven't demonstrated the falsity of my statement.  Whether a person will become a communist or nazi depends, as it always has, on whether that person intends to become a communist or nazi.  It's a statement that is almost self-evidently true.

Prove otherwise.

Go find someone else to play your non-sequitur circle jerk games.  You know what you said.

[Kamaji]

Go find someone else to play your non-sequitur circle jerk games.  You know what you said.

Yes, I do.  I said that whether Trump supporters will become communists or nazis depends on what they intend to become.  Notwithstanding your libel that it was a false statement, you still have not demonstrated how it was a false statement.

Maybe you should stop making false statements.

[Bigun]

The notion that there was ever any intention that there be anything like Judicial supremacy in this Republic offends me greatly.

[Cyber Liberty]

Let's just dispense with the attacks on each other.  Everybody has already had their last word.

[MeganC]

You have logically committed yourself to authoritarianism and tyranny - to defiance of the rule of law - you made your bed, it's too bad you find it uncomfortable.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were defined as unalienable rights in our founding. Damn the law if it conflicts with those rights.

And said St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all."

Andrew Jackson took seriously his charge to protect the lives of Americans. If some ass in a black robe said otherwise then Andy ignored him.

I support the idea of America First and Americans First and if President Trump protects Americans despite the objections of America hating jurists then that's fine by me.

[MeganC]

The notion that there was ever any intention that there be anything like Judicial supremacy in this Republic offends me greatly.

 

[Kamaji]

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were defined as unalienable rights in our founding. Damn the law if it conflicts with those rights.

And said St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all."

Andrew Jackson took seriously his charge to protect the lives of Americans. If some ass in a black robe said otherwise then Andy ignored him.

I support the idea of America First and Americans First and if President Trump protects Americans despite the objections of America hating jurists then that's fine by me.

And the entire Constitution - including the separation of powers, the checks and balances - the power of the federal courts to frustrate the intemperate demands of the executive - was drafted precisely to protect those inalienable rights. 

If you value those rights, then you would value the Constitution, including the parts the Founders drafted that intended - yes, intended - for the courts to prevent the executive from taking actions that were expedient if the executive failed to follow duly enacted law.

But, you don't seem to care about the Constitution, which really means that, when push comes to shove, you don't really care about those unalienable rights, either, because you're willing to throw overboard the mechanisms the Founders designed to protect those rights.

[MeganC]

And the entire Constitution - including the separation of powers, the checks and balances - the power of the federal courts to frustrate the intemperate demands of the executive - was drafted precisely to protect those inalienable rights. 

If you value those rights, then you would value the Constitution, including the parts the Founders drafted that intended - yes, intended - for the courts to prevent the executive from taking actions that were expedient if the executive failed to follow duly enacted law.

But, you don't seem to care about the Constitution, which really means that, when push comes to shove, you don't really care about those unalienable rights, either, because you're willing to throw overboard the mechanisms the Founders designed to protect those rights.

You like Hitler similies so here you go:

Hitler was lawfully elected. Would you have had the German people abide their laws as they did with Herr Hitler or should they have ignored the law and done the right thing anyway?

[Kamaji]

You like Hitler similies so here you go:

Hitler was lawfully elected. Would you have had the German people abide their laws as they did with Herr Hitler or should they have ignored the law and done the right thing anyway?

Yes, he was.  Voters are very unreliable people.  And once he was elected, he attacked the independence of the judiciary, and ultimately rendered the judiciary subservient to the executive.

I fail to see the difference between that and what you are advocating for Trump to do in the here and now.