Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

why not
if the president feels it's their duty to go against Scotus then it's legit if they've the backing of the People

That's not the way this place works. Just for example, how many times has Trump's plans been stymied by the courts? Was he able to ignore their decisions and do what he wanted anyway? No.

Game over, please go sit in the loser's circle.

[jelgate]

That's not the way this place works. Just for example, how many times has Trump's plans been stymied by the courts? Was he able to ignore their decisions and do what he wanted anyway? No.

Game over, please go sit in the loser's circle.

Yes

[Annoyed]

Yes

Details? Enquiring minds want to know

[SoulReaver]

That's not the way this place works. Just for example, how many times has Trump's plans been stymied by the courts? Was he able to ignore their decisions and do what he wanted anyway? No.

I said it before your lower courts are irrelevant only SCOTUS/SDS matters & he knew that

Game over, please go sit in the loser's circle.

as opposed to the cheaters' circle?

[Annoyed]

I said it before your lower courts are irrelevant only SCOTUS/SDS matters & he knew that

But until SCOTUS rules on an issue, the lower court's ruling stands.

[SoulReaver]

But until SCOTUS rules on an issue, the lower court's ruling stands.

more dishonesty
deferments are irrelevant when the outcome's inevitable

[SoulReaver]

meanwhile

https://www.voanews.com/usa/trump-ad...rotection-rule

"drain the swamp"? you mericans will drink it

[Annoyed]

more dishonesty
deferments are irrelevant when the outcome's inevitable

Haven't I told you before that SCOTUS review of any particular case is not a certain thing?

[Annoyed]

meanwhile

https://www.voanews.com/usa/trump-ad...rotection-rule

"drain the swamp"? you mericans will drink it

Aren't you always bellyaching about the "Deep State" ?

This repeal cuts back on the power of unelected government toadies, which is what the "Deep State" really is.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ay-protections

“As a member of the Ag community, President Trump and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler are keeping their promise to repealing the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that gave unelected bureaucrats the power to regulate lakes, streams, ponds and ditches,” Braun said in a statement Thursday.

[SoulReaver]

Aren't you always bellyaching about the "Deep State" ?

This repeal cuts back on the power of unelected government toadies, which is what the "Deep State" really is.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ay-protections

yeah man how dare they prevent unelected indu$trial elites like Koch from polluting the People's property right?

at least these unelected govt agents can be fired unlike those in the Supreme Deep State

btw the dipshts who murdered Eric Garner are also unelected didn't see you or the GOP complain about that deep state either

[SoulReaver]

Haven't I told you before that SCOTUS review of any particular case is not a certain thing?

you also said the decision's up to SCOTUS/SDS alone

[Annoyed]

you also said the decision's up to SCOTUS/SDS alone

An issue gets put before the courts, and works its way up, Appeals from both sides. Eventually, if appeals proceed, (and they can fail at any level, lack of money to keep going, etc.), SCOTUS is asked to look at it. SCOTUS doesn't have to review it. They don't even have to comment on it. If SCOTUS is silent on the issue, the lower court ruling stands.

[Annoyed]

Oh, this is good!!!

Remember how the DNC "selected" Shrillary for 2016?

This could be sour grapes from a loser, but maybe not. Is the DNC going to do what it wants again? I certainly hope they aren't that stupid, just in case they pull 2020 out of the crapper somehow.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gab...-is-already-in

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, who didn't qualify for Thursday night's presidential primary debate, says the Democratic National Committee’s qualification system could be sowing distrust among voters.

Gabbard also called the debates “kind of a charade,” for their lack of substance.

“What’s clear is that this system lacks transparency,” Gabbard told Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report, adding that this is problematic because “it creates a lack of trust in Democratic voters that the DNC is actually working for their interest.”

Gabbard has called out the DNC for its debate qualification standards before. Candidates must meet donation requirements as well as receive support from at least 2 percent of participants in four polls recognized by the committee. Gabbard accused the DNC of being unfair in deciding which polls qualify, and blamed this for her exclusion from Thursday's event in Houston.

She voiced concern that the DNC’s lack of transparency when it comes to how they determine the qualification system could discourage voters from even taking part in primary races.

[SoulReaver]

SCOTUS is asked to look at it. SCOTUS doesn't have to review it. They don't even have to comment on it. If SCOTUS is silent on the issue, the lower court ruling stands.

again a dishonest way to look at it
correct way to look at it is the complete opposite: if SCOTUS/SDS does decide to review it then no one (and most importantly no elected official) can prevent them from doing so

so as I was saying SDS is the only court that counts all the lesser ones are irrelevant

[Annoyed]

again a dishonest way to look at it
correct way to look at it is the complete opposite: if SCOTUS/SDS does decide to review it then no one (and most importantly no elected official) can prevent them from doing so

so as I was saying SDS is the only court that counts all the lesser ones are irrelevant

Again and again and again, wrong, wrong, wrong.

If no one files an appeal to the SCOTUS on an issue, they can't look at it.