Proof We Have Too Many Liberal Judges

[satrebil]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a judge rules against Trump they are crazy liberals pushing an agenda. Is that the genius conclusion that you've come to?

Well let's see...

Judge in first case OP mentioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Obama appointee.
Judge in second case OP mentioned: Jesse M. Furman. Obama appointee.
Judge in 3rd case OP mentioned: Amit Mehta. Obama appointee.

Nope, absolutely no correlation to see here. Carry on.

 

[Slade3200]

Liberals really have no use for the Legislative process. They want The Bench so they can legislate with little or no opposition.

Wow, how enlightening... thanks for sharing

You are welcome. It is only an opinion based on observations of behavior by Democrats.

its a selective observation based on a select group of Democrats. When you apply that to the very diverse and general group of Liberals you present a dishonest and inaccurate point... do better

I qualified it as pure opinion vs. trying to present opinion as fact so you can stop your bullshit about dishonesty and inaccuracy.

Ok that’s fair... I withdraw dishonesty and go with inaccuracy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are trying to increase the power of the House of Representatives. Why can't they simply pass legislation like they are supposed to do? If we had sensible judges, they would reject this power grab by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler.

<< On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.” >>

Will John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify in impeachment?

The judge was 100% correct.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a judge rules against Trump they are crazy liberals pushing an agenda. Is that the genius conclusion that you've come to?

Well let's see...

Judge in first case OP mentioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Obama appointee.
Judge in second case OP mentioned: Jesse M. Furman. Obama appointee.
Judge in 3rd case OP mentioned: Amit Mehta. Obama appointee.

Nope, absolutely no correlation to see here. Carry on.

The fact that you look at the decisions and who appointed them and mention nothing about the details of the case and legal reasoning behind each decision shows your cards. Sorry. You lose.

 

[satrebil]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a judge rules against Trump they are crazy liberals pushing an agenda. Is that the genius conclusion that you've come to?

Well let's see...

Judge in first case OP mentioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Obama appointee.
Judge in second case OP mentioned: Jesse M. Furman. Obama appointee.
Judge in 3rd case OP mentioned: Amit Mehta. Obama appointee.

Nope, absolutely no correlation to see here. Carry on.

The fact that you look at the decisions and who appointed them and mention nothing about the details of the case and legal reasoning behind each decision shows your cards. Sorry. You lose.

Sure thing, cupcake.

 

[miketx]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a judge rules against Trump they are crazy liberals pushing an agenda. Is that the genius conclusion that you've come to?

Just admit it was over your head.

 

[busybee01]

Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are trying to increase the power of the House of Representatives. Why can't they simply pass legislation like they are supposed to do? If we had sensible judges, they would reject this power grab by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler.

<< On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.” >>

Will John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify in impeachment?

The Constitution gives Congress the power of oversight. They do not have to pass any laws.

 

[busybee01]

Another crazy decision by a liberal judge:

< Judge Furman ruled to drop the citizenship question from next year’s decennial census. In doing so, he disregarded the precedent for including the citizenship. This precedent has a history that dates back to 1820 and was continuously used from 1890 to 1950 on every census, and continues to this very day in the American Community Survey. >

Heritage Experts: Trump must fight liberal judge’s ruling on 2020 census | myHeritage

It is not a crazy decision. The American Community Survey and the Census are 2 different things. It has not appeared on the census since 1950. Even John Roberts saw the deception that Trump was engaging in.

 

[busybee01]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a judge rules against Trump they are crazy liberals pushing an agenda. Is that the genius conclusion that you've come to?

Liberals are on the wrong side. Real Americans are figuring this out.

<< Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense fund for parts of border wall >>

Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall - CNNPolitics

Trump is on the wrong side. Americans do not want a wall. Congress has the power of the purse.

 

[lennypartiv]

The judge was 100% correct.

No he wasn't. Trump has executive privilege to prevent Mulvaney, McGahn, and Bolton from testifying.

 

[Dana7360]

Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are trying to increase the power of the House of Representatives. Why can't they simply pass legislation like they are supposed to do? If we had sensible judges, they would reject this power grab by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler.

<< On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.” >>

Will John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify in impeachment?

You russian bots seriously need to learn the US constitution.

The congress doesn't just pass legislation. They also have the job of oversight. It's right there in the constitution. Unfortunately your russian bosses didn't take the time to tell you to actually read that document so you actually know what you're posting about when you try to pass yourself off as an American.

The congress isn't doing any sort of power grab. trump is. He only follows parts of the constitution he likes. He doesn't like the fact that congress has oversight.

Also, a subpoena is a legal document that people can't ignore. It's illegal, a crime, to ignore a subpoena. You would know this if you were an American but we all know you aren't.

So McGahn will testify.

The rest of those who try to ignore a subpoena will get the same results in court.

Deal with it.

 

[lennypartiv]

Liberals cheer as the Democrat Party plans a coup.

 

[lennypartiv]

Judge in first case OP mentioned: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Obama appointee.
Judge in second case OP mentioned: Jesse M. Furman. Obama appointee.
Judge in 3rd case OP mentioned: Amit Mehta. Obama appointee.

Case closed.