I think you are thinking of the states not being allowed back into the Union for a time.
The Democratic party itself wasn't banned.
US Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order, calls it 'blatantly unconstitutional'
- Thread starter Shaquille Oatmeal
- Start date
The Democratic party itself wasn't banned.
Let me explain where you went wrong, as you appear to be challenged.
Judge John Coughenour was appointed by the Reagan administration in 1981 having mostly worked as a law professor at the University of Washington (not exactly a hotbed of conservatism) prior to his appointment. He only practised law for 4 years following his call to the bar. In my experience 19 out of 20 law professors lean left. His private practice was in Seattle. The court he sits on holds hearings in Seattle and Tacoma. He's sitting in one of the most liberal districts in America. He's supported a number of other legal positions posited by the left such as finding a violent predator law to be unconstitutional, and has opposed mandatory minimum sentencing. He's not known for any noteworthy conservative rulings.
Yes, Liberal judges can be found in Seattle. The Dems knew that. Why do you question their wisdom, when they were correct?
Last edited:
I do.
It really shouldn't work as well as it does, and yet you insist on making it so.
It is not.
Not many people will admit this.
Not really.
Law has always been politics.
The question is how much and how blatant.
That the Supreme Court is unabashedly corrupt and partisan right now is not great, but if you are a believer in American Empire, a corrupt judiciary isn't necessarily a sign of decline.
After all, if it obeys the Emperor, then things are still good in the Imperial mindset.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this point.
The American Empire has from it's creation celebrated the separation between the executive branch and the Judicial branch. A breakdown of this principle is a sign of decline.
What is next? Using the Department of Justice to attack political adversaries?
What he said doesn't make any sense in any event. Just the usual suggestion that the Dems mysteriously found a way to end run the sort of legal system that other - more decent and proper-thinking - Americans would put in place.
His ruling - of course - could simply be the correct ruling on a very simple and obvious legal question rather than an evil plot to subvert America, as you suggest.
Oh, the "loophole" thing is nonsense, I agree.
I was just commenting on the bit about the Democrats in the South at the time.
It was totally irrelevant to anything, but it was a real fact.
I figure I should reward them on the rare cases they appear.
Just because something is celebrated in myth doesn't mean it was ever real.
Also, a separation of the Executive branch and the Judicial branch has shit all to do with whether or not law is politics.
That just says those two political centers are not aligned and have their own interests.
Just like the Legislative is supposed to as well. But then the whole system was designed as if those would be the power centers struggling and not parties.
A shitty design that fell apart almost instantaneously. But they were making it up as they went and it isn't surprising some of their guesses were wrong.
That said, abandoning even the pretense of partisanship is a sign of decline even more dramatic than abandoning the pretense of being apolitical.
But that's been going on for decades now.
That's been going on for years.
Sure, Trump made it worse and is going to make it even worse still this term, but there has been some level of that off and on for ages.
It gets reined in, people do their best to make it hard to do, etc.
Trump is the first president I can think of to try and present doing it as a good thing, though.
I can't imagine that the post bellum southern dems gave much of a shit about anything other than lynching blacks and re building their plantations in the 1860's.
I find it hard to think that immigration was a live issue for them.
Would Barron Trump have to be kicked out of the country?
