Trump Food-Stamp Cuts Blocked by Judge Who Cites Pandemic

She is right only partially. The DOJ is part of the executive branch in that the attorney general is part of the presidents appointees

 

I didn't like Obama because of his policies. Obamacare, his rules of engagement for combat troops, his pullout of Iraq, Killing Gaddafi and his insane deal with Iran. He is a product of '60s radicals from his mothers circle and we are indeed fortunate he only had two terms because he was just hitting his stride.

 

Sure they rule on constitutionality

"The Affordable Care Act returned to the front page this weekend when a federal district court in Texas issued an opinion striking down the entire law as unconstitutional."
https://www.ballardspahr.com/alerts...-17-district-court-rules-aca-unconstitutional


now what constitutional issue did she raise here to stop the Executive branch from carrying out it's constitutional authority.

She doesn't like how she thinks the law will affect some people. That is not her jurisdiction.

 

What ? Thats not what she said. The president said that the courts have no authority over the rules that the Executive branch creates. Thats just laughably false. They cannot change or create laws, deem one of their “rules” a law, or if that “rule” usurps a laws it is illegal. That is the Most basic function of the court system.

 

NO. The Texas district court was asked to rule if the individual mandate was a tax, if their was no penalty. They ruled that it wasn't. Ruling that the individual mandate wasn't a tax, via the SC ruling that said it was, would invalidate the rest of the law as it stood. They didn't rule on its constitutionality, they ruled on one part of it, and that one part if upheld would make it unconstitutional.

Civics.......

 

Yes district courts can rule on constitutionality. Now what are the constitutional grounds for this judge to enjoin the Executive branch.

"District courts hear both criminal and civil cases, though their jurisdiction is limited to disputes that involve an actual “case or controversy.” Additionally, the dispute must involve a constitutional provision or federal law (as opposed to a state law) or be between litigants residing in different states (or where one party is a citizen of another country)."
https://www.theusconstitution.org/u-s-federal-courts-101/

 

Well when you get the able bodied people off government subsistence that leaves more money for the truely needy who are NOT affected by this.

 

Obama was rebuked by the supreme court 12 times. Trump means these Clinton and Obama judges have no right to do it because of politics and hate for Trump

 

trump is a very big loser in court = https://www.propublica.org/article/...p-losses-fred-barbash-washington-post-q-and-a

 

No one cares, Bluesguy.

 

Stop it. Trump means courts cannot tell him what to do.

 

Please read the definition of a “constitutional provision”. A “provision” is a LAW written into the constitution. Like the right of the government to TAX. The core of this case was “did the government have the right to make this “tax””. The answer from the district court was yes, but that this didn’t qualify as a tax, because there was no “penalty”. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Or.....just maybe.....because its the Law ?

Why is everything some “Obama conspiracy” ?

Trump made the simple claim that the Courts have no jurisdiction over the executive branch. He was wrong. She clearly laid that out for him. Even the most cursory read of the Constitution, and/or a 5th grade civics class explains that. Read your constitution and then get back to me.

 

Cool story which court ruling has the Trump administration ignored again?

 

I'll ask you the same question, since you say Trump believes the Judicial branch has no authority over him, which court order has Trump ignored again?

 

He doesnt have to ignore a court order. She was correcting him in his assertion via his legal teams argument in her court that the courts have no legal grounds to rule on what they defined as a “rule” to an existing law. She made it very clear that they were wrong in that assertion. Trump tweeted about it and got called out.

I have a very simple question hawgs...do you think the courts have power over the executive branch ?

 

A petty difference. In fact, the judge did not reverse Trump's act, only temporarily blocked it.

 

Yes they do have the authority.

 

You want to believe that junk, by

You want to live by that junk, by all means, live in an alternate reality.

 

Constitutionality. On what constitutional basis did this judge rule?

 

Obviously many and your argument lacks merit.

 

Following the Constitution is neither right wing or left, as Americans it's what we do and it has not gone out of fashion.

 

Judges have the authority to interpret and rule on the law. They have no authority to set administration policy. Even though it was bumble-headed this judge was within her authority to issue an injunction, but her words surrounding her injunction was way beyond her scope and authority and almost completely watered down her ruling authority.

 

The question posed was what was the difference how the program was financed and my answer was the emergency provision has a shelf life and would eventually run it's course. Providing for it with dedicated tax dollars is harder to end. It isn't a petty difference unless you consider that emergency funding is never ending as well.

 

The judge did rule, they didn't set policy, good grief, how petty is this.