If the policy is unconstitutional they should change it. Not wait for a Court to tell them to change it. - ThreadSky

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social • 1 day ago

If the policy is unconstitutional they should change it. Not wait for a Court to tell them to change it.

Comments

It really must be emphasized how much of a liar you are. You applaud this administration ignoring the constitution to violate the law. https://bsky.app/profile/voicefromthemtn.bsky.social/post/3lkiynj4rzk2p

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•4 hours ago

Oopsie, too late.

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

Just circling back to this. your actual position, which you explained later, is that a president should not stop because the courts are irrelevant. Your view is that the constitution, which you took an oath to uphold, does not matter. https://bsky.app/profile/voicefromthemtn.bsky.social/post/3lkgy2ucq322n

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

This is darkly humorous, as you claim expertise on the law of Christ. And, yet, you think bearing false witness is good. You especially think it is good in service of harming people.

https://bsky.app/profile/voicefromthemtn.bsky.social/post/3lkeitb5cck23

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

I agree. But like Trump this fictional president doesn’t care

bwkemper.bsky.social•1 day ago

You’re ignoring the fact that, in the hypo and in real life, the government is asserting the unconstitutional policy is constitutional.

That’s why they have been taken to court.

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•1 day ago

In practical terms the courts lack an enforcement mechanism on the executive. The only real remedies are impeachment and term limits.

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

And you, for whatever reason, are saying they should have even less

bwkemper.bsky.social•1 day ago

Or he’s saying the courts shouldn’t even try because of that.

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•1 day ago

Any effort to rule against the President in a way that binds him should have to go through the Supreme Court to go into effect.

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

which means, in effect, that the president gets to do whatever he wants. your solution is that there should be absolutely no way for the president to be constrained absent impeachment. This has no basis in the law or constitution

I'll again say that there is zero chance you believed this a year ago

bwkemper.bsky.social•1 day ago

Nope, the law expressly gives that power to district courts and gives the government the ability to appeal. That has always been the law.

diegoatlaw.bsky.social•1 day ago

No

That’s just wrong

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply