We Need a New Judiciary Act

[Rightguide]

We need a Judiciary Act along the following lines:

A new Judiciary Act along these lines would need to define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for
judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making. Some possible provisions could include:

Prohibition on Political Interference: Explicitly barring federal judges from issuing rulings that intrude on the exclusive constitutional powers of the President or Congress.

Judicial Disciplinary Panel: A specialized body (perhaps within the Judicial Conference or an independent commission) to investigate and punish judges who violate their oath or commit transgressions that do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors or impeachment.

Ban on Political Involvement: Preventing judges from financially supporting, endorsing, or publicly commenting on political matters, with clear penalties for violations.

Expedited Review Process: Fast-tracking appeals for cases where lower court judges have obstructed constitutional executive authority, ensuring swift resolution by higher courts.

Accountability Mechanism for Constitutional Ignorance: Requiring federal judges to demonstrate a working knowledge of the text and original meaning of the Constitution, with removal as a possible consequence for repeated violations.

This could be a major step in restoring judicial neutrality and preventing politically motivated rulings from shaping national policy. Would you like help drafting a formal proposal or refining specific legal mechanisms?

I think I'll send these ideas along to my Senator and Congressmen.

 

[ll74]

Lol. ..good luck in your endeavors.

The judiciary continues to do its job properly.

In case you missed it, their job isn't to let the Executive do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[jomar]

Sure. Let’s start with SCOTUS.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

We need a Judiciary Act along the following lines:

A new Judiciary Act along these lines would need to define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for
judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making. Some possible provisions could include:

Prohibition on Political Interference: Explicitly barring federal judges from issuing rulings that intrude on the exclusive constitutional powers of the President or Congress.

Judicial Disciplinary Panel: A specialized body (perhaps within the Judicial Conference or an independent commission) to investigate and punish judges who violate their oath or commit transgressions that do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors or impeachment.

Ban on Political Involvement: Preventing judges from financially supporting, endorsing, or publicly commenting on political matters, with clear penalties for violations.

Expedited Review Process: Fast-tracking appeals for cases where lower court judges have obstructed constitutional executive authority, ensuring swift resolution by higher courts.

Accountability Mechanism for Constitutional Ignorance: Requiring federal judges to demonstrate a working knowledge of the text and original meaning of the Constitution, with removal as a possible consequence for repeated violations.

This could be a major step in restoring judicial neutrality and preventing politically motivated rulings from shaping national policy. Would you like help drafting a formal proposal or refining specific legal mechanisms?

I think I'll send these ideas along to my Senator and Congressmen.

What’s wrong with simply appealing the case?

 

[ll74]

A good line I heard today:
If you can't prove your argument through four appeals courts plus five justices from SCOTUS, the problem isn't the courts....it's your argument.

 

[DeluxAuto]

We need a Judiciary Act along the following lines:

A new Judiciary Act along these lines would need to define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for
judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making. Some possible provisions could include:

Prohibition on Political Interference: Explicitly barring federal judges from issuing rulings that intrude on the exclusive constitutional powers of the President or Congress.

Judicial Disciplinary Panel: A specialized body (perhaps within the Judicial Conference or an independent commission) to investigate and punish judges who violate their oath or commit transgressions that do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors or impeachment.

Ban on Political Involvement: Preventing judges from financially supporting, endorsing, or publicly commenting on political matters, with clear penalties for violations.

Expedited Review Process: Fast-tracking appeals for cases where lower court judges have obstructed constitutional executive authority, ensuring swift resolution by higher courts.

Accountability Mechanism for Constitutional Ignorance: Requiring federal judges to demonstrate a working knowledge of the text and original meaning of the Constitution, with removal as a possible consequence for repeated violations.

This could be a major step in restoring judicial neutrality and preventing politically motivated rulings from shaping national policy. Would you like help drafting a formal proposal or refining specific legal mechanisms?

I think I'll send these ideas along to my Senator and Congressmen.

How do you feel about presidents who violate their oath?

 

[Noitall]

No we dont

We needa send em to GITMO throw away the key

 

[ll74]

No we dont

We needa send em to GITMO throw away the key

But KingDJT said we already have (and hanged them as well)

Are they wrong?

 

[Rightguide]

A good line I heard today:
If you can't prove your argument through four appeals courts plus five justices from SCOTUS, the problem isn't the courts....it's your argument.

You don't understand the problem. I know you have an innate love of autocracy but it isn't the American way. No inferior Federal Judge has a right to assume authority over the Article II powers of the Presidency or to opine on political questions.

 

[ll74]

You don't understand the problem. I know you have an innate love of autocracy but it isn't the American way. No inferior Federal Judge has a right to assume authority over the Article II powers of the Presidency or to opine on political questions.

I do understand your issue with the courts. I also disagree with it completely.

The quote was from former DoJ lawyer under 45, Sarah Isgur.

Fyi - the autocracy isn't happening in the courts, it's happening in the Executive and your desire for complete and unfettered.free reign of your guy demonstrates your support of it.

You want your God guy to be a king.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Rightguide wants to be a brownshirt.

Lol

 

[Bn2f]

Oh, my dear, dear Rightguide just look how big and grown up my little boy has become. Why I remember like it was just yesterday that you were knee high and wet behind the ears saying we had no need for new laws, we just need to respect the ones that are already on the books.

 

[RobDownSouth]

How do you feel about presidents who violate their oath?

judging from his posting his history, i would say that his opinion would be predicated by the race of the president in question, the gender of the president in question and the poitical party of the president in question, in that order.

 

[Rightguide]

I do understand your issue with the courts. I also disagree with it completely.

The quote was from former DoJ lawyer under 45, Sarah Isgur.

Fyi - the autocracy isn't happening in the courts, it's happening in the Executive and your desire for complete and unfettered.free reign of your guy demonstrates your support of it.

You want your God guy to be a king.

These courts do not have the authority to do what several are doing now. There is SCOTUS jurisprudence on the matter. It's called the "Political Question Doctrine." The Political Question Doctrine is a principle in U.S. constitutional law that prevents federal courts from ruling on certain issues that are deemed more appropriate for resolution by the executive or legislative branches. It is based on the idea that some questions are inherently political rather than legal and, therefore, fall outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Established the test for identifying political questions. It ruled that courts can review legislative apportionment but laid out factors for determining when an issue is a political question.

Nixon v. United States (1993) The Supreme Court refused to review the Senate’s impeachment procedures, stating that impeachment trials are a political process assigned to Congress.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979) Declined to rule on whether the President could unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, considering it a political question.

The doctrine prevents judicial overreach into areas like foreign policy, impeachment, and war powers. It shields the executive and legislative branches from judicial interference in matters explicitly assigned to them by the Constitution, it prevents judicial overreach into areas like foreign policy, impeachment, and war powers It shields the executive and legislative branches from judicial interference in matters explicitly assigned to them by the Constitution and ensures that courts focus on legal rather than policy questions. It ensures that courts focus on legal rather than policy questions.

 

[Rightguide]

How do you feel about presidents who violate their oath?

Did you shit your pants when Joe Biden defied the ruling of SCOTUS on his student loan authority?

 

[Rightguide]

judging from his posting his history, i would say that his opinion would be predicated by the race of the president in question, the gender of the president in question and the poitical party of the president in question, in that order.

I would support any good conservative patriot as President regardless of skin color. Byron Donalds comes to mind right off the bat.

​

 

[DeluxAuto]

Did you shit your pants when Joe Biden defied the ruling of SCOTUS on his student loan authority?

Do you want me to say I shit my pants, Scatman Corrupters?

 

[DeluxAuto]

judging from his posting his history, i would say that his opinion would be predicated by the race of the president in question, the gender of the president in question and the poitical party of the president in question, in that order.

The Obama years were very tough for Klanguide.

 

[ll74]

These courts do not have the authority to do what several are doing now. There is SCOTUS jurisprudence on the matter. It's called the "Political Question Doctrine." The Political Question Doctrine is a principle in U.S. constitutional law that prevents federal courts from ruling on certain issues that are deemed more appropriate for resolution by the executive or legislative branches. It is based on the idea that some questions are inherently political rather than legal and, therefore, fall outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Established the test for identifying political questions. It ruled that courts can review legislative apportionment but laid out factors for determining when an issue is a political question.

Nixon v. United States (1993) The Supreme Court refused to review the Senate’s impeachment procedures, stating that impeachment trials are a political process assigned to Congress.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979) Declined to rule on whether the President could unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, considering it a political question.

The doctrine prevents judicial overreach into areas like foreign policy, impeachment, and war powers. It shields the executive and legislative branches from judicial interference in matters explicitly assigned to them by the Constitution, it prevents judicial overreach into areas like foreign policy, impeachment, and war powers It shields the executive and legislative branches from judicial interference in matters explicitly assigned to them by the Constitution and ensures that courts focus on legal rather than policy questions. It ensures that courts focus on legal rather than policy questions.

They do have the authority. You just don't want them to have the authority because you want your God king guy to do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of laws and Constitutionality

Regardless, if the Executive argues it well enough, the appeals court will respond appropriately

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would support any good conservative patriot as President regardless of skin color. Byron Donalds comes to mind right off the bat.

There's always been a 'short list' of "acceptable Negroes" you'd theoretically support.
Sho 'nuff!

I'm curious, has there ever been a black candidate for public office you've ever voted for?

 

[DeluxAuto]

There's always been a 'short list' of "acceptable Negroes" you'd theoretically support.
Sho 'nuff!

I'm curious, has there ever been a black candidate for public office you've ever voted for?

Beyond the color thing, his understanding of what it means to be a patriot is bullshit.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Beyond the color thing, his understanding of what it means to be a patriot is bullshit.

Unlike you? Ha ha ha!

 

[Rightguide]

Do you want me to say I shit my pants, Scatman Corrupters?

Want has nothing to do with it. Over the 8 years I've been here you've waddled around swinging a loaded diaper and scowling and whining your frustration to the displeasure of all thinking people here. We'd much rather you clean yourself up and thus the air around you.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I'm sorry, you're going to have to crawl further up my leg of you are to be heard, dwarf.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Want has nothing to do with it. Over the 8 years I've been here you've waddled around swinging a loaded diaper and scowling and whining your frustration to the displeasure of all thinking people here. We'd much rather you clean yourself up and thus the air around you.

Your threads fail because you're a gullible dumbfuck and I enjoy shitting all over them. It's the only reason you escape my ignore list, Jack.