Do we have too much respect for the judicial branch?

Yakuda

Yakuda

Verified User
This is an interesting read. It's written by a lawyer who recently became a judge and he's none too happy with the judiciary. He makes some great points, clearly points out the double standards and reminds us how the judicial branch can and has been weaponized. How often have we seen unelected individuals deciding what the executive branch can and cannot do?

From the article:

"Our Founders didn’t fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in
judicial robes."

 
Jake Starkey said:
Certainly too much for this Scotus.

Yakuda does not about checks and balances.
Click to expand...
Rambling nonsense.

The article suggest the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches and rightly so as there is no accountability to voters. The left has used the judiciary for years to advance their agenda. How it's being used to thwart the work of the executive branch. A single unelected individual is allowed to interrupt the functioning of the govt with no oversight or accountability. Some would call that judicial activism.
 
The branches are co-equal, sunshine. SCOTUS has been the arbiter of federal law since 1803. That does not stop because Trump says so.
 
The three branches are not co‑equal in the way people often claim today. However, they are separate, they check and balance one another, but they do not possess equal powers, equal democratic legitimacy, or equal accountability. None are more important than the others.
 
Yakuda said:
This is an interesting read. It's written by a lawyer who recently became a judge and he's none too happy with the judiciary. He makes some great points, clearly points out the double standards and reminds us how the judicial branch can and has been weaponized. How often have we seen unelected individuals deciding what the executive branch can and cannot do?

From the article:

"Our Founders didn’t fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in
judicial robes."

Click to expand...
I read it...from the beginning to the end.

The guy sounds to me like a jackass. The article reads to me like an application for the next SCOTUS slot should it open up.

Not sure what you found "interesting" about it, but I did not find anything particularly interesting or erudite.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I read it...from the beginning to the end.

The guy sounds to me like a jackass. The article reads to me like an application for the next SCOTUS slot should it open up.

Not sure what you found "interesting" about it, but I did not find anything particularly interesting or erudite.
Click to expand...
I don't ever expect much from leftists. I told you what I found interesting but you either can't read or reject it because it doesn't fit your small minded world view.
 
Jake Starkey said:
The three branches are not co‑equal in the way people often claim today. However, they are separate, they check and balance one another, but they do not possess equal powers, equal democratic legitimacy, or equal accountability. None are more important than the others.
Click to expand...
That last sentence is inaccurate in my opinion. The other two branches have far reaching powers that have a more direct impact in our lives making them more important. The judiciary especially district courts have unilateral power and no accountability to the electorate. They have been routinely used to block the work of the executive branch in direct opposition to the will of the people. The judiciary has been weaponized.

What they did in NY to change law do they could file a civil case against Trump all of supposedly raping someone was a smarmy thing to do but at least they changed the law.
 
Yakuda said:
I don't ever expect much from leftists. I told you what I found interesting but you either can't read or reject it because it doesn't fit your small minded world view.
Click to expand...
I don't expect much from you, either. And you seldom disappoint.

Thanx.
 
Yakuda said:
This is an interesting read. It's written by a lawyer who recently became a judge and he's none too happy with the judiciary. He makes some great points, clearly points out the double standards and reminds us how the judicial branch can and has been weaponized. How often have we seen unelected individuals deciding what the executive branch can and cannot do?

From the article:

"Our Founders didn’t fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in
judicial robes."

Click to expand...
Perhaps he shouldn't bring up the Revolutionary war if he is so ignorant of the Declaration of Independence.
 
Yakuda said:
That last sentence is inaccurate in my opinion. The other two branches have far reaching powers that have a more direct impact in our lives making them more important. The judiciary especially district courts have unilateral power and no accountability to the electorate. They have been routinely used to block the work of the executive branch in direct opposition to the will of the people. The judiciary has been weaponized.

What they did in NY to change law do they could file a civil case against Trump all of supposedly raping someone was a smarmy thing to do but at least they changed the law.
Click to expand...
You guys keep not understanding what the case was about and how Trump actually lost and what he had to pay the largest amount for.

Trump was sued for defamation. Then when the law was changed to allow those molested as children to sue their molestors and others that were sexually attacked to also sue that was a late add on to the case.
Trump had to pay $2.2 million for the sexual assault and $3 million and $83.5 million for defamation in the two cases.

I'm sure Carroll would be happy to let Trump not pay the $2.2 million if he pays the $86.5 million right now.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You guys keep not understanding what the case was about and how Trump actually lost and what he had to pay the largest amount for.

Trump was sued for defamation. Then when the law was changed to allow those molested as children to sue their molestors and others that were sexually attacked to also sue that was a late add on to the case.
Trump had to pay $2.2 million for the sexual assault and $3 million and $83.5 million for defamation in the two cases.

I'm sure Carroll would be happy to let Trump not pay the $2.2 million if he pays the $86.5 million right now.
Click to expand...
The gold digging skank couldn't even tell us what year this supposed rape took place. How do you get more stupid every day?
 
Yakuda said:
The gold digging skank couldn't even tell us what year this supposed rape took place. How do you get more stupid every day?
Click to expand...
You are so deep in your cult you think Trump only lost because NY passed a law to allow those who were sexually assaulted to sue their attackers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top