Liberal Forum

Sgt Bilko » 04 Feb 2017 12:36 pm » wrote: What you ignore is there are two types of judges. Progressives that create new laws from the bench and those who only judge according to what the law says. Going before a progressive judge means the law makes no difference. They get overturned regularly but people pay the price in extended lawyer fees to get it overturned. Trump's appointee to SCOTUS is absolutely not a progressive wingnut. He reads the law and constitution literally. A judges job is to apply the law and not create it. Misty probably thinks judges creating law is great until they gore her ox.

And if tump were ignoring checks and balances he wouldn't be talking about having it overturned. That implies he will use the curt system, the system of checks and balances.

A real abuse of checks and balances would be, sat, congress will not pass a bill. I don't know, one that will give some sort of legal status to children of illegals. When congress doesn't pass the bill the president writes a directive, an EO or whatever that says prosecutors can defer prosecution for two years, effectively nullifying federal law passed by congress.

So if anyone wishes to discuss checks and balances, who understands them, and who ignore thems, I'm down.

If misty had posted that the comment was not really presidential, that it sounded like a petulant child who did get his way, I would have said yup, you are right.