- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Explain the “Judge blocks Trump on…” thing
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
"dangerous strategy with tariffs". Please explain which branch of the government has the technical comprehension and big picture resources to effectively negotiate tariffs with 187 different countries. And to influence countries with a pro American resultant along with the tax. Use Canadian cheese as an example
1
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:23 am to Laugh More
quote:
Congress did this to themselves. Instead of doing their jobs, they delegated so much of their power to the President so they can continue to get elected.
Congress abdicated that power/role, it didn't delegate, meaning they allowed the Executive the power primarily through inaction. Which is why we've come to be governed by way of the Executive Order. Of course, everyone should know the problems with that.
I'm okay with everything a President — and by extension the Federal Government as a whole — tries to do being challenged. It is time we reset some boundaries and clarify some roles. We've strayed from the intent of our governance and a third of our government has been effectively neutered because of it.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:25 am to TBoy
quote:
I hope that helps.
Your legal acumen is zero. You don’t need to be snide when you post your drivel. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:27 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Very solid analysis.
A simpletons analysis. You know this, Hank. You’re losing it.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:47 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Your legal acumen is zero. You don’t need to be snide when you post your drivel. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Except that I do know what I am talking about.
Do you have another explanation for judges ruling as they do, other than a vast conspiracy?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:53 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Congress abdicated that power/role, it didn't delegate
Touche, this is a better way to state and what I meant in context.
"Abdicate" is the perfect word for it, given they never did anything with their assigned power and so others took it. Its only now when Trump is moving things that they care.
Just another sign of the uniparty and who "they" are.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:56 am to Jesterea
quote:
While you’re not responding to me, I’ll try to explain my stance in good faith. The reason I feel it is an attack on democracy is the dishonesty and rhetoric coming out of the administration.
That is a well worded and cogent post.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:58 am to TBoy
quote:
Except that I do know what I am talking about.
Wrong. You have zero clue.
quote:
Do you have another explanation for judges ruling as they do, other than a vast conspiracy?
The appellate and Supreme Court have slapped down these district court rulings over and over. As I said…you have zero clue what you’re saying.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:58 am to TBoy
quote:
While you’re not responding to me, I’ll try to explain my stance in good faith. The reason I feel it is an attack on democracy is the dishonesty and rhetoric coming out of the administration.
Mean tweets?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:21 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This sounds good, but it falls apart when you look at the actual numbers. Trump has been sued more times than all presidents in the previous 40 years combined.
He is not doing that many unprecedented things. Also, Trump has already won at the SC, but district judges keep violating the orders of the SC.
This is simply incorrect. Most of the victories you’re thinking of are temporary in nature. While the Court may have ruled things are free to continue or, in cases where the admin has been set back, paused; these are simply emergency rulings that are not final. There’s no decision on them yet and the court can hear oral arguments and make decisions on them later.
Also, exercising control over different aspects of the executive are not unprecedented, but the scope and nature of how Trump’s administration is going about it is new.
A few major ones are impounding money appropriated by Congress, writing executive orders that are against the explicit text of the constitution, and dismantling departments created by Congress.
I would like to see other examples of such as these cited before acquiescing to the idea they are not unprecedented.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:25 pm to BBONDS25
Mean tweets? No. Official stances of the federal government on legal rulings? Yes.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:02 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
"dangerous strategy with tariffs". Please explain which branch of the government has the technical comprehension and big picture resources to effectively negotiate tariffs with 187 different countries. And to influence countries with a pro American resultant along with the tax. Use Canadian cheese as an example
Sometimes I think y'all don't read what is actually posted
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
outstanding explanation. is this what you achieve in court filings? You are the poster child for why I dropped out of Loyola law school many years ago
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:49 pm to Trevaylin
Bro you said this
When that has no relevance to the discussion or the post to which you replied. Nobody is arguing that the President doesn't have the ability to tariff, generally IF Congress has granted him the authority. There are a number of statues the admin could have relied upon that clearly delineate the authority to the executive.
As my post said:
His admin chose to pick a Congressional statute that never mentions tariffs and in no way clearly grants him the authority to issue tariffs, "when there are other options that would have clearly worked"
quote:
Please explain which branch of the government has the technical comprehension and big picture resources to effectively negotiate tariffs with 187 different countries. And to influence countries with a pro American resultant along with the tax. Use Canadian cheese as an example
When that has no relevance to the discussion or the post to which you replied. Nobody is arguing that the President doesn't have the ability to tariff, generally IF Congress has granted him the authority. There are a number of statues the admin could have relied upon that clearly delineate the authority to the executive.
As my post said:
quote:
This is a potentially disastrous strategy with his tariffs, especially when there are other options that would have clearly worked.
His admin chose to pick a Congressional statute that never mentions tariffs and in no way clearly grants him the authority to issue tariffs, "when there are other options that would have clearly worked"
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
and you will not describe what " If" means, and the other options that supposedly exist.
I had a full time job to teach a two thousand pax site what full compliance was in a very hazardous work place. Your weasalness is the arch enemy of compliance.
I had a full time job to teach a two thousand pax site what full compliance was in a very hazardous work place. Your weasalness is the arch enemy of compliance.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News