why did you follow the ruling if it didn't apply?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759382)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759327)

And as far as checks and balances go, let's say a judge granted an injunction against troop movements overseas (I know it's a ridiculous hypo, but that's the point). Clearly the judge is out of line, legally, but is Trump then forced to wait on this judge or the SC to decide? I would say no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759356)

But I also don't give a fuck that it shouldn't apply because the state of affairs is such taht there are south american mestizo violent gang members who walked right over the border and immediately get all kinds of "constitutional protections" which will be litigated by every biglaw dept in america who are happy to do it pro bono and it is the most basic, basic function of a somehwat functional society to remove illegal criminal gang memebrs who rape and kill so this judge can go fuck himself and every lib can go fuck off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759388)

Kill his family too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759712)

i wonder if there are findings and declarations, etc., that Trump will rely on. the last time we declared war was in June 1942, against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759467)

can you imagine Thomas Jefferson having to "answer" to some eye-rolling 105IQ ex-Chili's waitress wearing a shiny bathrobe.

we've degraded ourselves irreparably.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759394)

this is not about the A&S Act its a litmus test for whether you believe america is entitled to have a functional society or not.

if judges over the years have interpreted the Constitution, which is silent on this issue, as offering them these protections, then those cases must be wrong bc they reach an anti-civilizational conclusion regardless of the sophistry theyre reasoned with

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48759416)

the core problem is that the chief executive can't function if there are 677 district judges than can enjoin a art 2 decision. the whole reason we have a president and not just Congress is because a country cannot make rapid and necessary decisions by committee.

what is the greater harm: allowing an illegal POTUS order to stand until it reaches SCOTUS, or vesting 677 individuals with the power to veto POTUS orders? in the former justice is delayed until SCOTUS decides, and there's even a check on that via impeachment. in the latter, the chief executive does not have the power to accomplish his role. this is why for centuries we rarely saw this dumb bullshit happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48760168)

respond to my poast in good faith and explain why i'm wrong/dumb and what your argument is. make an actual argument instead implying one via asking questions or just dropping blithe adhoms like "ur dumb lol." just lay it out straight, and i promise that if you do i'll respond in kind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48760332)

"Some things like foreign policy and military action are not subject to judicial review under our Constitution" is so broad and there are hundreds of examples judicial review touching on military action and foreign affairs. hamdan v. rumsfeld touches on both, for example.

why can't you just plainly state what you disagree with and present your reasoning?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696037&forum_id=2:#48760839)