The Trump Presidency

mossy said:
That's the GOP in a nutshell. Complain like hell if a woman or a black man said or did it, then completely justify it when a GOP elected golden child white male does it. It must be so simple to be a Republican. So simple it makes me sick to my stomach to watch.
Click to expand...

Ahh - the Republicans are the hypocrites.

Well, you're half right
 
mossy said:
That's the GOP in a nutshell. Complain like hell if a woman or a black man said or did it, then completely justify it when a GOP elected golden child white male does it. It must be so simple to be a Republican. So simple it makes me sick to my stomach to watch.
Click to expand...

Something tells me you could teach a master-class in simplicity.
 
57Brave said:
Meals on Wheels on the chopping block..
Click to expand...

No, Meals on Wheels is not on the chopping block.

The CDBG is (rightfully) on the chopping block, which, depending on the locale, may have allocated a pitifully small amount of resources to MoW to subsidize meals.

Most people pay for MoW (which, as an aside, is not reserved exclusively for senior citizens) and the fee is nominal (too much for the quality of food prepared, but I digress - it's better than nothing).
 
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105 en banc.pdf

Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the
people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated. We
are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the
meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign
policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to
the President and Congress. We will yet regret not having taken this case en banc
to keep those lines of authority straight.

Yezzir.
 
Hawk said:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105 en banc.pdf

Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the
people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated. We
are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the
meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign
policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to
the President and Congress. We will yet regret not having taken this case en banc
to keep those lines of authority straight.

Yezzir.
Click to expand...

I wish you'd quoted the next paragraph, too.
 
Legal Services Corp. is for the drop, too. Really a shame.

Legal Services was launched as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty with the support of the American Bar Association led by Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who later served on the Supreme Court. Later, President Nixon created a free-standing corporation to administer legal aid funds.

“Here each day the old, the unemployed, the underprivileged, and the largely forgotten people of our Nation may seek help,” Nixon wrote in a 1971 message to Congress. “Perhaps it is an eviction, a marital conflict, repossession of a car, or misunderstanding over a welfare check—each problem may have a legal solution. These are small claims in the Nation’s eye, but they loom large in the hearts and lives of poor Americans.”

In 2015, Legal Services offices closed 755,774 cases — more than 100 for every lawyer and paralegal employed. About 70 percent of its clients are women, and the majority of its clients are white and between the ages of 36 and 59. The program provides lawyers only to people earning no more than 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline, which is currently $15,075 for an individual and $30,750 for a family of four.

“We have a legal system that was created by lawyers for lawyers and assumes you have a lawyer,” said James J. Sandman, president of Legal Services Corp. “If you’re a tenant facing eviction and you’re up against a landlord who has a lawyer, if you’re the victim of domestic violence from someone who has a lawyer, you are not playing on a level field. Legal aid is about fairness in the justice system.”
Click to expand...
 
thethe said:
Just more fuel to the fire that Obama is leading the charge to destabilize the Trump presidency.
Click to expand...

source.gif


Sounds legit.
 
Hawk said:
Didn't find it germane to any case law. :winking0016:
Click to expand...

Well, for posterity's sake:

The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues [on the Ninth Circuit] were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse—particularly when they came from the parties. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.

Just for the record, I think the revised EO has a significant chance of being upheld in the SC, though it's not a layup. If you listen closely, though, you can hear the DoJ attorneys facepalming every time the President or one of his surrogates talks about it in public.
 
sturg33 said:
John McCain: "Rand Paul is now working for Vladimir Putin"

You can't make this stuff up! Where is that tin foil stock!!!
Click to expand...

I voted for John McCain and am no fan of Obama, but wow we dodged a bullet there. Johnny has gone crazy.
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, for posterity's sake:

The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues [on the Ninth Circuit] were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse—particularly when they came from the parties. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.

Just for the record, I think the revised EO has a significant chance of being upheld in the SC, though it's not a layup. If you listen closely, though, you can hear the DoJ attorneys facepalming every time the President or one of his surrogates talks about it in public.
Click to expand...

Ehh. Trump's act is getting old for alot of us, but defending the 9th circuit is not the hill I would pick to die on. There is a reason this stuff always seems to come from them. If they don't like being called political activist hacks in judge's clothing, then they should probably stop acting like political activist hacks while they wear robes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top