JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #41
The judiciary has been active since 1789.The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.Ray, be honest here with the whole story.
The GOP has the Senate and the House and the presidency.
The federal courts have only interfered with two EO orders.
That is not obstructionism.
If that isn't, I don't know what is.
He wanted to put a halt to immigrants from selected countries perfectly within our laws. Activist judge stopped that. He wants to withhold funding from places that are Sanctuary, another activist judge stopped that. He wanted to build a wall. Democrats in the Senate threatened to shut down the government.
His major issues are being stopped by the left, so yes, that is obstructionism. He may have an all Republican led house, but not enough in the Senate to override Democrats.
The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.
Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.
The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.
It, per Art III, has original jurisdiction on matters constitutional. You don't. That's the end of it.