> Holy shyt, Amy Barrett torched the living shyt out of Jumanjii

Jumanjii's dissent really amplified just how little she knows about the separation of powers and checks and balances.
I guess when she said she's "not a biologist"- she forgot to also mention that she's not a lawyer.

ACB is GenX when they started force-feeding 2 blacks into top university classes and departments they were totally unqualified for, like a sideshow. At first there was no possibility of them passing the class or understanding the rigorous assignments. It was mean and reckless of top universities to do this to the west-African dna blacks, instead of just being able to admit a small number of blacks and keep them contained in a couple easy departments. ACB saw them peppered about in classes way over their heads.

This was the era where every store or business required exactly two handicapped parking spaces per business, a relatively easy requirement even if the spaces were never used.

You can take the black girl out of the jungle...

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/stat … 4538733009 [Questionable Source]

I read Ketanji Brown's dissent and it seemed pretty clear and made sense.

Baggerism is a mental illness.

wrote:

I read Ketanji Brown's dissent and it seemed pretty clear and made sense.

Baggerism is a mental illness.

It only makes sense if you are an emotional nitwit with no knowlege of the law and constitution.
\

wrote:

It only makes sense if you are an emotional nitwit with no knowlege of the law and constitution.
\

Jackson is right. This is what she said in her dissent: "the court’s “decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

The ruling allows the Executive branch to violate the law without having to worry about local judges calling them on it. So if any current or future President decides to break the law, there's nothing stopping them. It makes the President more like a King and less like an elected official.

wrote:

Jackson is right.

If a district judge thinks the president is wrong, they can apply to the supreme court for a ruling against the executive branch.   You can't have 700 judges with equal power to stop presidential power.

wrote:

If a district judge thinks the president is wrong, they can apply to the supreme court for a ruling against the executive branch.   You can't have 700 judges with equal power to stop presidential power.

Actually, that was the founders whole idea. They deliberately wanted to limit the power of the Executive branch.

The idea was to check the President's power so that it was not absolute. The President wasn't supposed to be able to disregard the law. Kings are above the law - the founders wanted to make sure that the President of the US was NOT above the law. That's why judges were given the power to stop the President from doing things that were against the law (via injunctions). So prior to today's ruling, the President would have to go to court to fight an injunction. Now that has been reversed, and the only way to rein in a President who breaks the law is to sue him and wait for the case to get to the Supreme Court (which could take years).

wrote:

Actually, that was the founders whole idea. They deliberately wanted to limit the power of the Executive branch.

The idea was to check the President's power so that it was not absolute. .

They did not give equal power to over 600 district court judges.

wrote:

They did not give equal power to over 600 district court judges.

Actually, they did.

The whole idea was that Presidents are not supposed to be kings.

Yes, the President's power can be checked by a judge if he violates the law. The President is supposed to be a citizen, just like the rest of us. He's not supposed to be a king, not divine, no special rights or privileges. NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

I’m pretty sure current liberal activist judges are not what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had in mind.