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.
originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gortex
I knew this would not be easy for Trump, thankfully. It is very difficult to overturn a TRO. The burden of proof is high and must prove that removing it causes a clear and immediate danger.
Calling a judge a 'so called' judge did not help him. They did remove the word 'outragous' from the description of the order minutes later, but the damage had already been done. It is dangerous and authoritarian for the executive branch to describe the judicial branch in that way.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
a bit hyperbolic.
EO's are operational memorandums, not law. Since his job is to execute the law, he has some leeway in interpretation when determining how the execution will take place.
That leeway ends where it violates the constitution and existing laws.
And "hyperbolic" is this from the President
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
Insane for a President to (again) personally attack a FEDERAL JUDGE..
BUT...He is actually blaming the COURT SYSTEM in it's entirety!
Judicial branch BAD!...THAT is the rhetoric of a 3rd World Dictator attacking other branch's of government that are meant to balance his power.
He is a ridiculous man..And Conservatives and Democrats and everyone in-between who has read the constitution are pointing out the same. Only his most fascist supporters are supporting this.
originally posted by: Indigo5
BUT...He is actually blaming the COURT SYSTEM in it's entirety!
Judicial branch BAD!...THAT is the rhetoric of a 3rd World Dictator attacking other branch's of government that are meant to balance his power.
He is a ridiculous man..And Conservatives and Democrats and everyone in-between who has read the constitution are pointing out the same. Only his most fascist supporters are supporting this.
The ruling is expected to come down within the next week. Obama argued it's an "easy case" that never should have gotten to the highest court in the first place.
"It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words in, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple of thousand page piece of legislation," said Obama, predicting that "the Supreme Court's going to do what most legal scholars who have looked at this would expect them to do."
By making these comments, Judge Napolitano said that the president was trying to prepare the American people for a decision that he expects to lose.
"If he does lose that, the [ObamaCare] statute is eviscerated. But he's basically gonna say, 'Big deal. It's just nine people in black robes. Who cares?' When he says things like that, it undermines the fabric of American law," said Napolitano, adding that there is "antipathy" from some of the justices toward the president.
Obama had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."
President Obama took a shot at the Supreme Court today for even agreeing to hear King v. Burwell — the pending lawsuit challenging the legality of how his team has implemented Obamacare — in the first place. “This should be an easy case,” Obama said during a press conference in Germany. “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”
President Obama elaborated on his claim that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be “unprecedented,” as he suggested today that the court does not take its responsibilities “seriously” if they do.
“We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress, on a economic issue, like healthcare — like I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner [vs New York, 1905],” Obama told reporters during the question-and-answer session of the Associated Press luncheon.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grambler
The left excuses what Obama does and applies a double standard when it suits them.
originally posted by: chuck258
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
a bit hyperbolic.
EO's are operational memorandums, not law. Since his job is to execute the law, he has some leeway in interpretation when determining how the execution will take place.
That leeway ends where it violates the constitution and existing laws.
And "hyperbolic" is this from the President
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
Insane for a President to (again) personally attack a FEDERAL JUDGE..
BUT...He is actually blaming the COURT SYSTEM in it's entirety!
Judicial branch BAD!...THAT is the rhetoric of a 3rd World Dictator attacking other branch's of government that are meant to balance his power.
He is a ridiculous man..And Conservatives and Democrats and everyone in-between who has read the constitution are pointing out the same. Only his most fascist supporters are supporting this.
The old hag Ruth Ginsburg attacked Trump by wearing her dissent collar the day after Trump was elected, in addition to a blatant attack earlier in the year.
So you're going to call Ginsburg a corrupt 3rd world judge right? Because she did literally the exact same thing you are bitching Trump is doing right now.
But it's ok for a judge to make law because ... left wing democrats
originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gortex
I knew this would not be easy for Trump, thankfully. It is very difficult to overturn a TRO. The burden of proof is high and must prove that removing it causes a clear and immediate danger.
Calling a judge a 'so called' judge did not help him. They did remove the word 'outragous' from the description of the order minutes later, but the damage had already been done. It is dangerous and authoritarian for the executive branch to describe the judicial branch in that way.
But it's ok for a judge to make law because ... left wing democrats