It’s just hard to reconcile that maga is against sex offenders and criminals and wants them removed forcibly from the country or worse held in detention centres at the cost of the taxpayers.
When it just so happens that Trump is both.
Ice and these detention centres are costing you billions so the idea that this will help Americans financially is not making sense.
And then you have Trump defending a convicted sex trafficker and hiding Epsteins crimes who also happens to be his friend.
If you are against this type of behaviour enough to scold others you must see the disconnect.
What do you care that I care.
Do you have an answer as to why Trump is helping out a convicted sex trafficker and considering giving her a pardon.
So you’ve decided these people are criminals but want to hold them in the country and not deport them costing the taxpayers billions.
Why not deport them if that’s the idea.
How did other presidents deport without ice raids if they are criminals then they could be arrested and deported straight away by cops.
The government would have all this information.
How would your life change?
So you’re of the opinion that appellate court judges should read the tea leaves of emergency docket cases that include no explanation or justification, and use those as precedent?
No. I’m of the opinion that judges shouldn’t legislate from the bench, interfere in foreign policy or hinder the Constitutional prerogatives of the President of the United States. When they do these things they deserved to be smacked down. They might not have to respect Trump, but they do have to respect SCOTUS. They know what they’re doing, they just don’t like being publicly spanked.
3 Likes
She must be getting her “info” from Rosie O’Donnell since nothing she said was true.
2 Likes
So somehow that supposedly gives you a say in what happens in this country?
Is everything so perfect in your country that you can afford to meddle in American politics or is it just a distraction from how horribly things are in your own country.
When SCOTUS gives a decision in on the emergency docket, is it precedent? The courts deserve to know.
And who decides what falls under the “Constitutional perogatives of the President”?
As I understand, the rulings of SCOTUS were never intended to become the “law of the land” Their rulings were originally intended to be the final ruling pertaining to whatever individual case they were hearing. Somewhere along the way, their rulings have become the defacto law of the land because it is assumed SCOTUS would rule exactly the same way in all similar cases, so no one bothers to challenge their ruling in similar cases. In effect it makes all of their rulings"precedents". I don’t buy the argument that these rogue judges don’t know exactly what they’re doing by all these injunctions against Trump. The sheer number of injunctions, and the fact they are almost all done by known Trump hating judges, in Liberal courts is what’s UNprecedented. If SCOTUS was legally obligated to tell these judges if their rulings are precedent, they would be doing so. The fact that they have not, to me, is sending a message. This is just my opinion.
As to who decides Presidential prerogatives? Ultimately SCOTUS. And so far, they are vastly supportive of Trump’s actions.
Wait what? Alexander Hamilton would like a word. stare decisis predates our country and was foundational to the
beliefs of those that singed the Constitution. The earliest SCOTUS decisions were well understood to be precedent setting.
That’s sick … both of you.
Says the guy who types “ghey” instead of gay. 
1 Like
They have no legal place to go if released. They are here illegally.
Parole comes after sentencing. They will be paroled to wherever they came from … or Uganda.
What is barbaric about putting them in a camp built specially for them instead of packing them into already crowded jails and prisons? To me, doing that would be far more dehumanizing and cruel then housing them temporarily in this camp.
You’re really hung up on that ■■■■ aren’t you? You seem to bring it up in every thread regardless of the topic. The word that comes to mind is “obsessed.”
2 Likes
And how does that fit into the thread topic? You are really on a roll.
1 Like
What do you care about what we do? You have your own problems over there; mind your own house.
If you want to discuss sex offenders in politics and pardons for criminals there are other more appropriate threads or you could start one of your own on those topics. But please, stop mucking up every thread you join in in with that stuff. Continually posting off topic is a violation of the rules.
1 Like
Who cares. It’s the law. Don’t like it? Change the law.
1 Like
Bad move. Adding sure to be liberal socialist agenda driven ideological judges to the USSC would simply be an extension of the lower courts buffoonery and a “threat to ‘mocracy”! 
1 Like
