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

cbowers.bsky.social • 1 day ago

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

Comments

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

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•1 day ago

What other way is there to restrain the President?

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

restraining orders and injunctions. Trials that impose duties based on their verdicts.

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

please, be clear on why you think that (republican) presidents should not be restrained by law. Why do you think (republican) presidents should be allowed to act in a lawless manner? why do you want a king?

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.

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•1 day ago

On appeal the ruling should be stayed.

cbowers.bsky.social•19 hours ago

Hey Riley, have you figured out some legal basis for this assertion? Or is it really just that you want the illegal acts to continue?

cbowers.bsky.social•1 day ago

why, other than the fact that you want to allow Trump to do whatever he wants?

bwkemper.bsky.social•1 day ago

The stay was denied.

voicefromthemtn.bsky.social•1 day ago

By what court? And is that being reviewed?