sleeperkid
15312
1261
8
Feb 12, 2025 1:19 PM
sleeperkid
15312
1261
8
OnePostCloserToAHappierLIfe
This was why I was wildly worried about trump appointed judges, back in the day. Because of what happened.
ThisUsernameWasntTakenIGuess
I'm soooo tiiiirred of Democrats threatening things. "You better stop doing the thing you've been doing for years or I'll continue to do nothing about it." Insane. Make them follow the rules by using the consequences of their actions to keep them in check.... I'm so tired....
OhIfIMust
Stop. Threatening. And. Just. FUCKING DO IT!!!!!
FelonyRaptor
From Feb 24, 1803 to Jan 20, 2025.
DeadeicPrints
Jfc magats are dumb
cowgoesmoo1
Yes they are.
Kenbamazingbutprobablywontbe
The party of law and order until its them
freakdiablo
Laws for thee, not for me...
HighMagosSquidward
The purpose of the entire Judicial Branch is specifically to rein the Executive and Legislative branches. It's the quintessence of the job.
gayvillian
CrabbyBlueberry
Are you fucking kidding me? How many times have they "threatened" to arrest him? And how many times have they actually done it. Once. And it was a PHOTO OP. Surely Charlie Brown will kick the ball this time. https://imgur.com/pnl7FCG
VinnyVeritas
Thank you. Really weird that Trump, a comically ridiculous reality-TV character, & J.D. Vance, an unsuccessful Yale Law School graduate adopted by Silicon Valley shitheel Peter Thiel, never learned this basic tenet of the American Constitution. It's almost like they're... UNQUALIFIED.
Cranbananarama
Oh, I do enjoy when context/notes come back strong like that.
LootenetDan
I had to look up the website for the federal Office of Management and Budget, and it's gone. It redirects to whitehouse.gov, which is now just a vanity page for DJT. Shameful.
fractalsphere
Activist right-wing judges stopping a Democrat presidents order would be hailed and celebrated.
mcodger
and often, promoted
ForlornHopeful
Like Student Debt Relief...
FullBrindleJacket
I went to her Instagram and she is painfully stupid. She posted, “Why aren’t any women accusing BARACK OBAMA of sexual assault?” Um, because not everyone is a rapist like your heroes?
devolutionary
It’s part of deep deep NEED they have to Both Sides everything.
BDBottom
The stupid is a feature because it gets, as Steve Bannon says, shit in the discourse. MAGgots read her garbage then ask everyone they meet HOW CUM OBUMMER ISN'T IN JAIL FOR RAPIN WOMMEN HUUUUH??????? and no amount of fact or reason will keep the trash from spewing their talking points. It's the apotheosis of Reagan's bumbling racist ignorance: remember "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks"? Now extrapolate to, well, *this*.
wazeewa
And of course, Trump's dick-polisher Musk is calling for judge impeachment. What a fucking surprise.
CrabbyBlueberry
Threats don't work. Just fucking do it. Arrest the motherfucker.
unremarkableasterisk
Remember the days when presidents would routinely state: "Although we disagree with it, we respect the court's decision and we will determine our next steps shortly". I know I do.
itzu2jones31415
Seriously
BeragondGreatstride
Yeah, it was really recent. Like “right up until January 20th” recent
DavidNightingale
Stop the threats - ARREST HIM!
BeragondGreatstride
“He has control of the Senate and the courts”
- Mace Windu
JonnyTightlips
Unfortunately never going to happen. He controls the military and has an 80 million strong cult not to mention the supreme Court behind him.
CrabbyBlueberry
https://imgur.com/pnl7FCG
RPCharImages
I feel like Americans forget we literally cut the head off a king cos he was doing some illegal stuff...
AMercer
The problem is who would arrest Trump? It would be the Dept of Justice which reports to Trump. Trump has already been placing his cronies in there. They would laugh at such an order. The Federal Judge can order it but he does not have the means to enforce it.
ElbowDeepinaTinyOctopus
The plain face of Marbury v Madison provides the framework for why a court could have jurisdiction over executive actions. The balance of power context of Marbury v Madison's decision providing that same framework while capitulating the the President by not writing a Mandamus after all (and who has a rather famous response to this court had it actually attempted to enforce any authority over any actual action) tells us that that jurisdiction wasn't on sturdy grounds at the time. Maybe now. =[
ElbowDeepinaTinyOctopus
A bit of an explanation: My law school classes that discussed Marbury v Madison suggests it was a political move for the decision to give the President the win (so he wouldn't dispute it) while laying out that, like, they'd totally HAVE jurisdiction over Constititional Questions and have enforceable decisions if their jurisdiction didn't let them rule that their supposed jurisdiction on this case was unconstitutional, so they didn't have jurisdiction after all.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Since when must our king obey man’s laws
lapinox
"They can hate me, as long as they fear me".
stryhf
Horace Greeley alleges that when Jackson heard the ruling for Worcester v. Georgia, he said, "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it."
Tom40
You misspelled God and Emperor
Atlasguitar
Stop saying that shit. The proper terms are "dictator" and "felon".
Tom40
It’s amazing how often people who think of themselves as the former end up being revealed as the latter.
Spidey209
"Threatened" = "Did nothing of consequence"
wseslar
*beepbeepbeepbeep* Alex, what are checks and balances.
dontfloatmygoat
Great. Now find a general to back you up as it is a threat against the constitution
Gryphonosiris
You'd be surprised.
KerryCoder
I love a good Marbury vs. Madison reference!
KingofRogues
well...someone needs to stand up to him.
Slidje
Need more like him
nowinsituation
Too bad he wasn't;t appointed AG under Biden instead of that coward traitor Garland
banoot
I didn’t realize how many people don’t understand how the branches of the government are supposed to keep each in check…
ElroydIsGone
All the babble of Trump & Friends about the eeeevil "Deep State" was nothing more than discrediting checks and balances. Many people think these are some kind of magic that prevents bad things on their own, but instead, they give some people the right to stop others in their actions. It's always people who stop others by using the legal "checks and balances"-tools granted to them, and Trump smeared them as "evil deep state" instead of calling them what they really are.
RevRagnarok
We also need branches of gov't WILLING to keep the others in check... 😒
ChewyClit
My friend thought Check n Balance means the two parties keeping each other in check. I realize that the majority of American don’t understand how our government work because few of them ever to read the Constitution
freakdiablo
I was required to take civics in high school, and actually had a damn good teacher. Is it optional in some areas?
banoot
I was required to take participation in government(PIG)….
Gryphonosiris
Optional, no, but people just don't care to learn.
nycjtw
it's not that it's optional ... more that it's just not offered or taught
Hekatombe
Subtle... I like it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Co1dNight
These people don't even understand what that is...see exhibit A. (my replies are in red).
fractalsphere
Also came here to post that - thanks
bill4935
You know who lives in Marbury's house right now? The ambassador from Ukraine. Doesn't mean anything, but I thought it was funny.
HelikaformerNubisKnight9
Nice, haven't heart of it before (not from the US). TIL.
DoctorNoodlesMD
Help an ignorant and curious person out here. If marshal ruled it was illegal to withhold the commission, why did he not force Madison to comply and what does that mean now? That a judge can declare it's illegal but can't enforce it? I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to law, so go easy on me.
BearPerson
Essentially, it decided that it wasn't the correct court for the case, for tangled political reasons. The legal version of "you filed form 73B, but you need form 164 C yellow, please correct" - it's the supreme court, so it would have been able to decide the question, but only on appeal, it needed to be filed and decided in a lower court first. To be fair, there was a law stating that this sort of suit needed to be sent directly to the supreme court, which it dismissed as unconstitutional.
DoctorNoodlesMD
Thank you bear person! This and another answer helped me understand what to focus on here and why, enforcement aside. Much appreciated.
LordofGoats
Well, one fun thing about the judicial branch having any kind of check on the executive branch is that the judicial branch operates on the assumption that the executive will comply. It doesn't have any enforcement method other than the other branches of government are supposed to follow the law. I expect we will soon see what happens when that norm is set aside.
Onlyhereforthelaughs
$5 says the supreme court overturns that one too...
eronth
That would be a pretty interesting one for them to overturn. They'd be essentially gutting ALL of their own power. If they reversed that one they're either extremely desperate (e.g. getting threatened into reversing it) or they've got something really cushy lined up for themselves.
Onlyhereforthelaughs
Yeup...