Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the best things about the Tresidency of Donald Trump, is that he is appointing dozens (soon hundreds) of judges to the bench who will make decisions based on what the Constitution actually says.
In other words, conservatives. The Constitution is fundamentally a conservative document that strictly limits the power of the central government and leaves most things to the states and lower govts.
... the Trump administration is quietly restoring constitutional governance. A president has few powers more important than picking judges.
The most notable success here is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Those who hoped for another smooth-writing originalist to replace Antonin Scalia got what they wanted. “Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” Gorscuch asked at his first argument. “Originalism has regained its place at the table [and] textualism has triumphed,” he explained to more than 2,000 celebrants at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner last week, “and neither one is going anywhere on my watch.”
That goes just as much or more for the lower courts, which decide 35,000 cases a year, dwarfing the Supreme Court’s output. Here, Trump nominees have generally displayed serious commitment to enforcing the Constitution’s original meaning and applying statutory text as written.
One of the best things about the Tresidency of Donald Trump, is that he is appointing dozens (soon hundreds) of judges to the bench who will make decisions based on what the Constitution actually says.
In other words, conservatives. The Constitution is fundamentally a conservative document that strictly limits the power of the central government and leaves most things to the states and lower govts.
... the Trump administration is quietly restoring constitutional governance. A president has few powers more important than picking judges.
The most notable success here is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Those who hoped for another smooth-writing originalist to replace Antonin Scalia got what they wanted. “Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” Gorscuch asked at his first argument. “Originalism has regained its place at the table [and] textualism has triumphed,” he explained to more than 2,000 celebrants at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner last week, “and neither one is going anywhere on my watch.”
That goes just as much or more for the lower courts, which decide 35,000 cases a year, dwarfing the Supreme Court’s output. Here, Trump nominees have generally displayed serious commitment to enforcing the Constitution’s original meaning and applying statutory text as written.
So in other words you want government welfare at the federal level abolished along with Social Security and Medicare. That way there will be more money to throw at the military, which the constitution really demands.
So I gather getting rid of ObamaCare is not at all important to you.
I don't blame Trump for the failure to repeal Obamacare. I blame lame ass Ryan and McConnell and the three stooges: McCain, Murkowski, and Collins. It should be repealed, yes, but the GOP had 7 years to come up with a replacement and they choked "bigly." I don't hold Trump responsible for that.
I don't blame Trump for the failure to repeal Obamacare. I blame lame ass Ryan and McConnell and the three stooges: McCain, Murkowski, and Collins. It should be repealed, yes, but the GOP had 7 years to come up with a replacement and they choked "bigly." I don't hold Trump responsible for that.
I do for lying to his voters saying it would be gone immediately. He had a bigly better plan which was going to be yuge!
Trump: 'Nobody knew health care could be so complicated'
Court order to stop violating 4th amendment rights.
You want to play semantics, go ahead, the fact is that according to a court, Arpaio was ordered to stop violating 4th amendment rights and Arpaio refused.
So uninformed its pathetic. Arpaio was given an injunction to stop enforcing civil provisions of federal immigration law without another state-level crime being committed. There was never a ruling that his actions violated 4th amendment rights.....only that they COULD if there was no evidence of a state crime to go with it. Arpaio refused to stop immigration enforcement. There is no semantics, only the facts, of which you don't seem to have a single clue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
