CNN: Trump Performing Hostile Takeover of Courts

[westwall]

As a legendary community organizer once said - “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

CNN Commentator Slams Trumps's Constitutional Duty As Performing ‘Hostile Takeover of the Courts’

Trump may be installing lots of pro-prison, pro-theocracy judges but the goalpoasts keep shoftomg forward. It won’t be enough to regress the country like you want.

what you call regress, i can personal freedom. you don't have much of that under liberal domination.

Yeah take rights away from groups you don’t like and call it freedom

Nimwit

Oh? like your hero's want to take away gun Rights? That sort of thing?

 

[jc456]

As a legendary community organizer once said - “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

CNN Commentator Slams Trumps's Constitutional Duty As Performing ‘Hostile Takeover of the Courts’

Trump may be installing lots of pro-prison, pro-theocracy judges but the goalpoasts keep shoftomg forward. It won’t be enough to regress the country like you want.

what you call regress, i can personal freedom. you don't have much of that under liberal domination.

Yeah take rights away from groups you don’t like and call it freedom

Nimwit

Name one

 

[ColonelAngus]

Thank God Trump is going to put judges on the federal bench who actually enforce the laws and don’t legislate from the bench.

I’d love to see Roe V Wade become a state issue.

Blue States can have their abortions, Red states can have their births.

If abortions are important to you, move or drive to a blue state for abortions....just like people do for low taxed states.

 

[OKTexas]

As a legendary community organizer once said - “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

CNN Commentator Slams Trumps's Constitutional Duty As Performing ‘Hostile Takeover of the Courts’

Trump may be installing lots of pro-prison, pro-theocracy judges but the goalpoasts keep shoftomg forward. It won’t be enough to regress the country like you want.

Are there any other fantastic stories your imaginary friends are telling ya?

.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, he has the right to name judges to the courts, but I want him to name COMPETENT judges!
This is the first time I have ever seen so many POLITICAL appointments.
4 of his nominations were labelled as "unqualified" by the American Bar Assoc. I've never seen that before.
One would have been enough,... but 4? One was so bad, he couldn't answer a 2nd year law student question.
Give me quality people and I can live through their ideology...

You must be joking. Are you actually trying to tell us that Obama didn't consider a judge's political orientation when he nominated them?

Snowflakes are so fucking clueless.

BTW, Presidents don't use ABA recommendations any more since we know that those are totally political.

 

[jc456]

Yes, he has the right to name judges to the courts, but I want him to name COMPETENT judges!
This is the first time I have ever seen so many POLITICAL appointments.
4 of his nominations were labelled as "unqualified" by the American Bar Assoc. I've never seen that before.
One would have been enough,... but 4? One was so bad, he couldn't answer a 2nd year law student question.
Give me quality people and I can live through their ideology...

You must be joking. Are you actually trying to tell us that Obama didn't consider a judge's political orientation when he nominated them?

Snowflakes are so fucking clueless.

BTW, Presidents don't use ABA recommendations any more since we know that those are totally political.

No, no, if you don’t pick my guys you’re just a fk! Leftist philosophy

 

[bripat9643]

As a legendary community organizer once said - “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

CNN Commentator Slams Trumps's Constitutional Duty As Performing ‘Hostile Takeover of the Courts’

Trump may be installing lots of pro-prison, pro-theocracy judges but the goalpoasts keep shoftomg forward. It won’t be enough to regress the country like you want.

what you call regress, i can personal freedom. you don't have much of that under liberal domination.

Snowflakes believe a totalitarian state to be perfection.

 

[Crepitus]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

 

[Crepitus]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

"I disagree with them" doesn't mean unqualified.

What a fucking ego you have.

Go piss in the corner Marty, nobody pulled your chain.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

 

[dudmuck]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

 

[bripat9643]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

What "federal crime" is that?

 

[dudmuck]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

What "federal crime" is that?

“Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law),” Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University.

 

[bripat9643]

But you had no problem with Obama stacking the courts with unqualified LWNJs did you? In case you forgot here are Obama's numbers:

"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade."

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

What "federal crime" is that?

“Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law),” Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University.

The former chairman of the FEC disagrees:

Michael Cohen and Trump did NOT violate campaign finance law – despite Cohen's guilty plea​

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

Personal expenses are defined as “any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” That would include expenses such as clothing purchases, home mortgages, etc.
​

There is no shortage of leftwing hack lawyers who will say whatever the left wants them to say

 

[sakinago]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

Yea, because stacking the court with leftist “the constitution is a maeable document” judges is exactly what one should expect from the right... it’s not like Obama or Clinton would ever nominate far leftist judges...oh wait.

Oh my God, run for the hills, trump is nominating judges who actually operate within the confines of the constitution, and who don’t use their positions to become super-legislatures.

Trump could nominate a clone of RBG, and the left would still loose their shit over it. Kavanaugh is basically another roberts, the left should be thrilled trump didn’t go with the other leading option.

 

[dudmuck]

And how many of them were rejected because they were so unqualified?

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

What "federal crime" is that?

“Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law),” Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University.

The former chairman of the FEC disagrees:

Michael Cohen and Trump did NOT violate campaign finance law – despite Cohen's guilty plea​

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

Personal expenses are defined as “any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” That would include expenses such as clothing purchases, home mortgages, etc.
​

There is no shortage of leftwing hack lawyers who will say whatever the left wants them to say

Trevor Potter, a different FEC chairman, cites different law. A loan to the campaign is a contribution, and must be reported. But even what Bradley Smith cites, legal expenditure also requires reporting. As described here.

Ultimately, the Cohen judge allowed Cohen to plea guilty to a campaign finance crime.

 

[bripat9643]

Once Trump completes the takeover of the courts he can begin rounding up His opposition.

Thanks for pushing for gun control.

Yea, once kavenaugh is in, Trump can have dictatorial powers, dissolve congress and deploy his own brownshirts.

What "federal crime" is that?

“Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law),” Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University.

The former chairman of the FEC disagrees:

Michael Cohen and Trump did NOT violate campaign finance law – despite Cohen's guilty plea​

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

Personal expenses are defined as “any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” That would include expenses such as clothing purchases, home mortgages, etc.
​

There is no shortage of leftwing hack lawyers who will say whatever the left wants them to say

Trevor Potter, a different FEC chairman, cites different law. A loan to the campaign is a contribution, and must be reported. But even what Bradley Smith cites, legal expenditure also requires reporting. As described here.

Ultimately, the Cohen judge allowed Cohen to plea guilty to a campaign finance crime.

It wasn't a loan to the campaign, and they weren't campaign legal expenses. To be a campaign expenditure, it has to be something that the candidate wouldn't possibly ever pay for if it wasn't for the campaign. Buying a new suit and paying off bimbos don't meet that standard.

Furthermore, your source doesn't say what you claim. The article doesn't even mention any Trevor Potter.

Still wrong, douche bag.

 

[Lesh]

It is true that Trump is packing the courts with ultra right wing judges.

And these are lifetime appointments.

People should realize that this will generate corporatists decisions for a generation.

And that this is what happens when you either don't vote or vote for Republicans in the Senate and Oval Office

 

[Papageorgio]

Stacking the courts with unqualified RWNJs is not a constitutional duty.

Prove they aren’t qualified.

 

[bripat9643]

It is true that Trump is packing the courts with ultra right wing judges.

And these are lifetime appointments.

People should realize that this will generate corporatists decisions for a generation.

And that this is what happens when you either don't vote or vote for Republicans in the Senate and Oval Office

IN the snowflake lexicon "corporatist" is a euphemism meaning it actually complies with the Constitution.