Tapate50
Well-known member
Crazy how that works
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Crazy how that works
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
So was Biden brain dead not knowing where he is or was he a mastermind forcing Trump's own appointed FBI director to go after Republicans? I have been highly critical of the FBI where they deserved it. Like giving the memo about reopening the Clinton investigation to someone they knew would immediately leak it to the media to help Trump. I advocated for the firing of Chris Wray at all times. I was very critical of Comey before Trump even ran for office. I was also critical of Comey for inserting his feelings into the charging decision of Hillary which is against FBI policy.
Since you aren't bootlicker of the FBI you support these 3 men arrested since stealing government documents isn't a big deal right?
Since you aren't bootlicker of the FBI you support these 3 men arrested since stealing government documents isn't a big deal right?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Accuse me of bootlicking the FBI run by Trump's hand picked guy but now it's different because now the FBI is run by..... Trump's hand picked guy. Why you people get so mad at me for what Trump's own appointe does is beyond me. Maybe you can point to all the exonerated people the FBI prosecuted. Can I get a full accounting of all those people. I will wait, I am sure it's a big list
Edit - I do want to give medals to the FBI agents who stopped Democrats from stealing the Florida election. Why does no one except me want more details about this?
Also since Republicans claim there is clear evidence Joe Biden committed a crime in regards to Hunter/Ukraine I demand Kash Patel stop protecting Joe Biden and arrest and prosecuted him to the fullest extent of the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...S&cvid=b8be76ab709d41a08992a7f99f137074&ei=14
I know the answer already but do you people support Trumps DoJ ordering a Jan 6 terrorist who was convicted on gun charges in California he wasnt legally able to posses because of Domestic violence convictions being set free by Trumps J6 pardons?
I know the answer already but do you people support Trumps DoJ ordering a Jan 6 terrorist who was convicted on gun charges in California he wasnt legally able to posses because of Domestic violence convictions being set free by Trumps J6 pardons?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I take that as a yes you support the domestic abuser.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
lol
A lot of people seem to have their heads in the sand on this ruling, including liberals. This isn’t a blank check to do whatever the Trump admin wants to do with any random non-citizen they decide is a violent gang member without any due process.
I suppose the devil is in the details, but assuming “reasonable notice” to contest the government’s claim cannot be manipulated to be impossible/near impossible, I think this is a reasonable ruling.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://jeffjacoby.com/28486/no-tariffs-without-representation
But what about his predecessors? How often did they use the IEEPA to raise and lower tariffs?
Not once.
In the nearly half-century since President Jimmy Carter signed that statute, no president ever invoked it to impose tariffs — not against any country and not for any reason. That wasn’t because seven consecutive presidents failed to make use of a powerful tool granted to them by Congress. It was because no such tool exists.
Trump’s assertions notwithstanding, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidents to singlehandedly change the tariffs charged on foreign imports. Indeed, nowhere in the 3,700-word statute does the word “tariff” appear. Neither does “duty,” “excise,” “impost,” “levy,” or any other synonym for the taxes charged by governments on imports from other countries. The IEEPA has nothing to do with tariffs. It doesn’t even appear in the section of the United States Code — Title 19 — that deals with trade. Rather, it is codified in Title 50, which covers “War and National Defense.”
Congress passed the law in 1977 to enable presidents to deal quickly with a national emergency during peacetime by ordering sanctions against, or freezing the assets of, a hostile foreign power or terrorist organization. The legislative text refers to an “emergency” that gives rise to “an unusual and extraordinary threat” — in fact, lawmakers specified that “emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.” That clearly excludes the supposed emergency identified by the Trump administration to justify its punitive “Liberation Day” tariffs, namely the trade deficits the United States runs with many trading partners. Those deficits have persisted for decades. They are not “unusual and extraordinary.” They are also, nearly all mainstream economists would agree, not a threat.
But what about his predecessors? How often did they use the IEEPA to raise and lower tariffs?
Not once.
In the nearly half-century since President Jimmy Carter signed that statute, no president ever invoked it to impose tariffs — not against any country and not for any reason. That wasn’t because seven consecutive presidents failed to make use of a powerful tool granted to them by Congress. It was because no such tool exists.
Trump’s assertions notwithstanding, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidents to singlehandedly change the tariffs charged on foreign imports. Indeed, nowhere in the 3,700-word statute does the word “tariff” appear. Neither does “duty,” “excise,” “impost,” “levy,” or any other synonym for the taxes charged by governments on imports from other countries. The IEEPA has nothing to do with tariffs. It doesn’t even appear in the section of the United States Code — Title 19 — that deals with trade. Rather, it is codified in Title 50, which covers “War and National Defense.”
Congress passed the law in 1977 to enable presidents to deal quickly with a national emergency during peacetime by ordering sanctions against, or freezing the assets of, a hostile foreign power or terrorist organization. The legislative text refers to an “emergency” that gives rise to “an unusual and extraordinary threat” — in fact, lawmakers specified that “emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.” That clearly excludes the supposed emergency identified by the Trump administration to justify its punitive “Liberation Day” tariffs, namely the trade deficits the United States runs with many trading partners. Those deficits have persisted for decades. They are not “unusual and extraordinary.” They are also, nearly all mainstream economists would agree, not a threat.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The National Police Association is asking the DoJ to investigate the AG of New Mexico for civil rights violations for prosecuting two cops who shot and killed a suspect who had attempted to prevent them from using their taser on them by grabbing it. The crazy part is they were both convicted. The NPA claims that the prosecutions were politically motivated and to further the AG's career. Which is one of the most absurd statements ever made. People using the AG and DA positions to advance their career is almost literally every single one of them since the dawn of time. I think every Texas AG has gone on to be Governor for the last 40 years or so.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
A big medical marijuana case in NM just ended. They tried to get insurers to pay for cannabis prescribed medicine since they are required by state law to cover the cost of medicine. When people ask me why I hate the government I will tell them the following story. A judge ruled that a medicine used by over half the country does not qualify as medicine because the federal government whichs has its own medical marijuana program says its not a medicine.
I would think this is a bit of a skewed metric actually. I don’t recall any of the other current t justices joining a court so ideologically slanted ‘against’ them. If you assume ideologically similar justices will ask similar questions, having fewer voices to ask those questions would lead to this without Jackson doing anything noteworthy, no?