Trump vs Universities

Yeah, you need a nap. Or Rexulti.
Yes, a significant portion of the American public expresses concerns about antisemitism on college campuses. A survey found that a large majority of U.S. adults expressed concern about campus encampments, with many believing they should not be allowed or need stricter regulation. Many students, both Jewish and non-Jewish, feel that their university administrations have not adequately addressed antisemitism.

Elaboration:
  • Public Concerns:
    A recent survey by the American Jewish Committee found that 63% of U.S. adults expressed concern about campus encampments, with a significant number believing they should not be allowed or need stricter regulation.

  • Student Concerns:
    Many students, particularly Jewish students, report feeling unsafe and experiencing antisemitism on campus. A significant number of Jewish students have avoided expressing their views on Israel due to fear of antisemitism, and many have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity.

  • Faculty and Administration:
    While not all faculty or administrators are actively promoting antisemitism, some reports suggest a concerning trend of antisemitic rhetoric and activities by faculty members, and students are often less confident in the ability of administrators to combat the issue.

  • Need for Action:
    A majority of students, both Jewish and non-Jewish, believe their university administrations should do more to address antisemitism. The U.S. Department of Education has even investigated 60 universities for alleged antisemitic discrimination.


  • I don’t need a nap, things can change, accreditation can change.
 
Nah. I don’t hate Harvard. Hear good things about their medical school. Law school is probably decent. Business school not so great. Actually terrible. Politics, government and social sciences are a joke.
You've never been on campus or known anyone who has attended.
 
And people are shocked...shocked I tell you!... when oil-rich countries like UAE and Qatar trying to buy respectability offer to step in and help fund elite college endowments.
You have to wonder how many students from trump's favorite donating countries are exempt from the felon's racist wrath.
 
And people are shocked...shocked I tell you!... when oil-rich countries like UAE and Qatar trying to buy respectability offer to step in and help fund elite college endowments.
Harvard has about $53 billion in endowments. Qater, UAE can chip in if they’d like.
 
Harvard has about $53 billion in endowments. Qater, UAE can chip in if they’d like.
They're not going to fund them to go to Harvard, genius. They're going to take the people receiving those endowments into their own Universities.
 
And now the government isn’t. 👍

The government paid professors to conduct research, and there’s no reason to cut that off … except as a way to coerce Harvard into ceding control.

Why do you support the federal government’s attempt to seize control of a private university? No real conservative would support that. Are you ready to admit you’re an authoritarian?
 
Only ignorant SFB's believe that.
If the ignorant believe it, then logically you ought to believe it!
Trump is the president for all people is correct but since I was discussing college campuses I made the mistake of assuming you could follow the spirit of the conversation and connect the dots without having to explain every detail over and over again.
As I said, even if we do look only at colleges, your claim that he "has the courage to protect all people" is still just plain absurd.
What has Trump done to trans?
What hasn't he done to stir up animosity towards them? Heck, I live halfway around the world and even I heard about those "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" ads.
What has Trump done to Islam.
Threatened to ban them from the country entirely, at least before they showered him with gifts like that plane.
DEI is racist.
No, it's a remedy for racism. Which is exactly why it looks racist to you.
Not wanting trans women (men) in women’s sports is not transphobia, it’s applying fairness and protections for women, follow the science and the law.
Transwomen are not men. And Trump's whole appeal to his supporters is that he opposes fairness and protections for women. Just ask E. Jean Carroll.
You're wrong, discrimination and racism have no place in our society.
How I wish that were true. But you prove yourself wrong every time you open your mouth.
 
Any EO a district judge blocks is because that judge (and others) have a valid legal concern about the EO. Moreover, it is their legal duty to question what might be illegal or unconstitutional or overreach. As for Garcia, fine. Let him have his immigration hearing and ship him back if that is the decision. You should be all for that because due process is in the constitution and you don’t want a dictator wannabe to not follow due process for obvious reasons.


For your information, AI says: Yes, district judges can block executive orders through the judicial review process. While executive orders have the force of law, courts can strike them down if they are found to be unconstitutional or beyond the president's authority. District judges can issue preliminary injunctions, which are temporary orders halting the implementation of an executive order, especially if immediate harm is likely.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Judicial Review:
    Courts, including district courts, have the power to review the legality of executive orders. This means they can assess whether the order is within the president's constitutional authority and whether it conflicts with existing laws.

  • Preliminary Injunctions:
    If a judge finds a potential violation or immediate harm, they can issue a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order that prevents the executive order from being implemented while the court considers the case.

  • Example:
    Recent examples include district judges blocking parts of executive orders related to DEI programs and other policies.


  • Checks and Balances:
    This process of judicial review and the potential for injunctions represents a check on the power of the executive branch, ensuring that presidential actions are subject to legal scrutiny.
All of what you wrote does exist in today’s judicial system. It shouldn’t. No single district judge should have the authority to upend a presidential order. That means we have something like 2500 mini presidents. There is nothing in the constitution that grants district court justices judicial review, that authority is explicitly granted to the Supreme Court. Read up on how district court justices assumed judicial review authority. Congress needs to strap on a pair and reform the role of district courts before they do irreparable damage to the separation of powers.

I find it odd that Trump has more legal challenges than then presidents of the last 2 decades. TDS on steroids. Judge shopping will do that. What goes around comes around, Dems are digging a deep hole.
 
I find it odd that Trump has more legal challenges than then presidents of the last 2 decades. TDS on steroids. Judge shopping will do that. What goes around comes around, Dems are digging a deep hole.
He has more Executive orders than Presidents of the last two decades. In fact, you have to go back a lot further to find anyone even comparable to the pace of orders.

Abusing power tends to lead to checks by other branches. Courts are doing as they should. Congress should be doing a lot more.
 
The government paid professors to conduct research, and there’s no reason to cut that off … except as a way to coerce Harvard into ceding control.

Why do you support the federal government’s attempt to seize control of a private university? No real conservative would support that. Are you ready to admit you’re an authoritarian?
I pay taxes. I don’t want to pay them anymore.
 
I find it odd that Trump has more legal challenges than then presidents of the last 2 decades.
You shouldn't find it odd. No other president - not even Dumbya - has been more ignorant of the Constitution, nor have any of them had anything even in the same ballpark as Trump's decades-long track record of simply ignoring any and all laws he didn't like. So of course he's going to get more legal challenges than other presidents.

I pay taxes. I don’t want to pay them anymore.
That is the most eloquent summary of what Republicans stand for that I have ever seen.
 
All of what you wrote does exist in today’s judicial system. It shouldn’t. No single district judge should have the authority to upend a presidential order. That means we have something like 2500 mini presidents. There is nothing in the constitution that grants district court justices judicial review, that authority is explicitly granted to the Supreme Court. Read up on how district court justices assumed judicial review authority. Congress needs to strap on a pair and reform the role of district courts before they do irreparable damage to the separation of powers.
Holy shit! Are you serious? You want a king? One branch, not three? You are truly a trump acolyte. Most past presidential EOs don’t really get challenged. Care to guess the actual reason why-see below.

I find it odd that Trump has more legal challenges than then presidents of the last 2 decades. TDS on steroids. Judge shopping will do that. What goes around comes around, Dems are digging a deep hole.
Well, trump has way more EOs (that he probably doesn’t really understand) than past presidents and he’s pretty good at overstepping his authority and couldn’t give any fucks about laws in his way so that and constitutional questions are why, not TDS. And I remind you, there’s no judge shopping, there’s trump appointed judges blocking his bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top