Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[time4fun]

Go figure, the Justice Department has the exact same argument I did. Sucks to suck.

No one is arguing that the case was wrongly decided. We're arguing with the irresponsible notion that the Executive can just ignore Judicial decisions.

Notice that the DoJ is appealing the decision, not ignoring it.

[time4fun]

The bureaucrats and executive branch wants unlimited power in government with no oversight. Seran totally supports this. Imagine that.

You certainly don't seem to mind the Executive Branch sending a group of armed right wing militia to the Capitol building at the exact date and time Congress was certifying an election.

Glass houses and all of that.

[Seran]

No one is arguing that the case was wrongly decided. We're arguing with the irresponsible notion that the Executive can just ignore Judicial decisions.

Notice that the DoJ is appealing the decision, not ignoring it.

Umm, actually yes I've been stating all along the decision was wrongly decided on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or standing. So is the Department of Justice it seems.

[Tgo01]

Seran: Clarence Thomas stepped foot inside of a mansion! He is compromised! He has been bribed! IMPEACH!
Also Seran: Biden should just ignore the courts and do whatever he wants!

[Seran]

Think you all need to put your try hard hats on and learn the difference between a case being overturned due to a wrongly decided judgment, unconstitutional legislation, or executive decision, and the judge's lack of authority over a constitutionally and legislatively prescribed decision authorizing a medication. A good start would be to read the 38 page decision, arguments and citations the judge used in his rulings.

[Suppressed Poet]

You certainly don't seem to mind the Executive Branch sending a group of armed right wing militia to the Capitol building at the exact date and time Congress was certifying an election.

Glass houses and all of that.

1) After an entire special council investigation with millions of taxpayer’s dollars wasted you still lack any evidence to support your statement. Trump said we’re going to march down there and take our country back. That is not a planned insurrection despite your mental gymnastics to try to make it so.

2) The mob was unarmed.

Just like how Seran got triggered and insisted Trump broke the law when he posted a photo holding a baseball bat talking about Bragg, you got played. I’ll give you that Trump goes right up to the legal line to troll people, but he doesn’t cross it.

Edit to add: I don’t like or agree with Trump’s bad behavior post election results, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

[Tgo01]

Think you all need to put your try hard hats on and learn the difference between a case being overturned due to a wrongly decided judgment, unconstitutional legislation, or executive decision, and the judge's lack of authority over a constitutionally and legislatively prescribed decision authorizing a medication. A good start would be to read the 38 page decision, arguments and citations the judge used in his rulings.

Okay let's just end this once and for all:

Why was it okay for the courts to literally draft legislation out of thin air when it came to abortion, but the courts lack jurisdiction here? Is it because you agree with killing babies so you're okay with the courts getting involved there?

[Suppressed Poet]

Think you all need to put your try hard hats on and learn the difference between a case being overturned due to a wrongly decided judgment, unconstitutional legislation, or executive decision, and the judge's lack of authority over a constitutionally and legislatively prescribed decision authorizing a medication. A good start would be to read the 38 page decision, arguments and citations the judge used in his rulings.

I think what your much smarter liberal-minded friend is trying to tell you is that it’s fine to disagree with the ruling. It’s a completely different matter entirely to say that the courts have no authority and suggest it should be simply ignored. There is a process within the judicial system to work these matters out.

[Seran]

Okay let's just end this once and for all:

Why was it okay for the courts to literally draft legislation out of thin air when it came to abortion, but the courts lack jurisdiction here? Is it because you agree with killing babies so you're okay with the courts getting involved there?

You've not cited any new information here, read the arguments in favor and against the judgment, the judge is ruling and come back informed..

This is all striking me as very familiar to that other judge, in Florida who inserted her personal opinion in lieu of the law and then was unanimously overruled by the court of appeals. Her being admonished by the upper Court was particularly choice. Remember when she tried to assert her authority over an executive branch function and was told that she was a dumb bitch by the court of appeals?

[Seran]

I think what your much smarter liberal-minded friend is trying to tell you is that it’s fine to disagree with the ruling. It’s a completely different matter entirely to say that the courts have no authority and suggest it should be simply ignored. There is a process within the judicial system to work these matters out.

One of your friends suggested that it should just be ignored, but that was not my argument. My argument was that he lacked subject matter jurisdiction all together and should have dismissed the petition accordingly. Which is exactly what the court of appeals will probably do.