You’re right about that because over Labor Day weekend 45 people got shot and six were killed, but you’re OK with it
It’s been like that forever
Of course I’m not ok with it (sad that’s your best argument) And yes, big city crime has been around forever.
They’ve also seen significant reductions in murder date and violent crime (not the highest per capita btw). They’re spending $’s and working on solutions.
Of course I’m not ok with it (sad that’s your best argument) And yes, big city crime has been around forever.
They’ve also seen significant reductions in murder date and violent crime (not the highest per capita btw). They’re spending $’s and working on solutions.
Yes and Americans are tired of waiting
It’s time to get to work
Start with that crime-ridden shithole they call Utah.
In Orem, Utah, they're shooting the conservatives!
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Start with that crime-ridden shithole they call Utah.
In Orem, Utah, they're shooting the conservatives!
There working on it … as it turns out they are a Coven of Trannies and who knows where they actually are… But whatever you do don’t delete your RoseMarys Baby accounts …. And don’t answer the door
Sick little punks just can’t stand hearing the truth
Start with that crime-ridden shithole they call Utah.
In Orem, Utah, they're shooting the conservatives!
There working on it … as it turns out they are a Coven of Trannies and who knows where they actually are… But whatever you do don’t delete your RoseMarys Baby accounts …. And don’t answer the door
Sick little punks just can’t stand hearing the truth
Crime-ridden shithole - how come we aren't sending in the troops?
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Start with that crime-ridden shithole they call Utah.
In Orem, Utah, they're shooting the conservatives!
There working on it … as it turns out they are a Coven of Trannies and who knows where they actually are… But whatever you do don’t delete your RoseMarys Baby accounts …. And don’t answer the door
Sick little punks just can’t stand hearing the truth
Case: Deploying the National Guard to Portland
Judge: US District Judge Karin Immergut, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Lawsuit targeting Maryland judges who ruled against the administration
Judge: US District Court Judge Thomas Cullen, Nominated by: Trump (2020)
Cases: Deporting migrants without due process and using the Alien Enemies Act
Judge: US appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (leading a three-judge panel), Nominated by: Reagan (1984)
Judge: US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, Nominated by: Trump (2017)
Judge: US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Nominated by: Trump (2018)
Judge: US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Judge: US appellate Judge Leslie H. Southwick (leading a 2-1 panel), Nominated by: George W. Bush (2007)
Cases: Trump’s tariffs
Judges: US Court of International Trade Judges Timothy Reif and Jane Restani (as part of a three-judge panel), Nominated by: Reif by Trump (2019), Restani by Reagan (1983)
Judge: US appellate Judge Alan David Lourie (as part of a 7-4 decision), Nominated by: George H.W. Bush (1990)
Case: Limiting the Associated Press’ White House access
Judge: US District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, Nominated by: Trump (2017)
Case: Targeting pro-Palestinian legal immigrants
Judge: US District Judge William G. Young, Nominated by: Reagan (1985)
Case: A DEI crackdown at the Education Department
Judge: Gallagher, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Curbing birthright citizenship
Judge: US District Judge John C. Coughenour, Nominated by: Reagan (1981)
Case: Cutting $11 billion in public health funding
Judge: US District Judge Mary S. McElroy, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Shuttering the Voice of America
Judge: US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Nominated by: Ronald Reagan (1987)
These are left-wing judges?
It must be frustrating to get slapped down by your own appointees ...
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Case: Deploying the National Guard to Portland
Judge: US District Judge Karin Immergut, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Lawsuit targeting Maryland judges who ruled against the administration
Judge: US District Court Judge Thomas Cullen, Nominated by: Trump (2020)
Cases: Deporting migrants without due process and using the Alien Enemies Act
Judge: US appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (leading a three-judge panel), Nominated by: Reagan (1984)
Judge: US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, Nominated by: Trump (2017)
Judge: US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Nominated by: Trump (2018)
Judge: US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Judge: US appellate Judge Leslie H. Southwick (leading a 2-1 panel), Nominated by: George W. Bush (2007)
Cases: Trump’s tariffs
Judges: US Court of International Trade Judges Timothy Reif and Jane Restani (as part of a three-judge panel), Nominated by: Reif by Trump (2019), Restani by Reagan (1983)
Judge: US appellate Judge Alan David Lourie (as part of a 7-4 decision), Nominated by: George H.W. Bush (1990)
Case: Limiting the Associated Press’ White House access
Judge: US District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, Nominated by: Trump (2017)
Case: Targeting pro-Palestinian legal immigrants
Judge: US District Judge William G. Young, Nominated by: Reagan (1985)
Case: A DEI crackdown at the Education Department
Judge: Gallagher, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Curbing birthright citizenship
Judge: US District Judge John C. Coughenour, Nominated by: Reagan (1981)
Case: Cutting $11 billion in public health funding
Judge: US District Judge Mary S. McElroy, Nominated by: Trump (2019)
Case: Shuttering the Voice of America
Judge: US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Nominated by: Ronald Reagan (1987)
These are left-wing judges?
It must be frustrating to get slapped down by your own appointees ...
We do a disservice when we try to say judges are left or right wing. Sure, some may lean in directions, and I'm sure there are some that are truly biased, but there's a large number of judges that just rule on the law itself without preconceived ideas or thoughts. It's one of the things that does make this nation pretty great.
It must be frustrating to get slapped down by your own appointees ...
We do a disservice when we try to say judges are left or right wing. Sure, some may lean in directions, and I'm sure there are some that are truly biased, but there's a large number of judges that just rule on the law itself without preconceived ideas or thoughts. It's one of the things that does make this nation pretty great.
You are correct. I can try and stop but I don't expect trump or his regime to.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It must be frustrating to get slapped down by your own appointees ...
We do a disservice when we try to say judges are left or right wing. Sure, some may lean in directions, and I'm sure there are some that are truly biased, but there's a large number of judges that just rule on the law itself without preconceived ideas or thoughts. It's one of the things that does make this nation pretty great.
Judges are flawed people influenced by politics. The law itself is political. So are judges. Case in point…the current SCOTUS.
The degree is tough to argue and I agree it is an important part of our system. I just don’t care to normalize it.
We do a disservice when we try to say judges are left or right wing. Sure, some may lean in directions, and I'm sure there are some that are truly biased, but there's a large number of judges that just rule on the law itself without preconceived ideas or thoughts. It's one of the things that does make this nation pretty great.
Judges are flawed people influenced by politics. The law itself is political. So are judges. Case in point…the current SCOTUS.
The degree is tough to argue and I agree it is an important part of our system. I just don’t care to normalize it.
You saying you don't care to normalize it means it currently doesn't match up with your preconceived notion of what is correct. Yet you yourself just said that judges are flawed, the law itself is political, and judges are too. Under those conditions I'd argue that your normal can't possibly ever exist.
Judges are flawed people influenced by politics. The law itself is political. So are judges. Case in point…the current SCOTUS.
The degree is tough to argue and I agree it is an important part of our system. I just don’t care to normalize it.
You saying you don't care to normalize it means it currently doesn't match up with your preconceived notion of what is correct. Yet you yourself just said that judges are flawed, the law itself is political, and judges are too. Under those conditions I'd argue that your normal can't possibly ever exist.
Hence the degree of politicization that I mentioned. Also, some laws have a greater impact than others.
We didn’t have to worry about presidential immunity until it was granted.
You saying you don't care to normalize it means it currently doesn't match up with your preconceived notion of what is correct. Yet you yourself just said that judges are flawed, the law itself is political, and judges are too. Under those conditions I'd argue that your normal can't possibly ever exist.
Hence the degree of politicization that I mentioned. Also, some laws have a greater impact than others.
We didn’t have to worry about presidential immunity until it was granted.
Granted or acknowledged? Again, you need to read the actual decisions, all the pages, rather than just being spoon-fed whatever take you want to listen to on it. Nothing in that decision had any dramatic effect on how we viewed the Presidency before or after. No one was going to sue the President directly for being the commander in chief because that was specifically part of his job - we already were doing what the Court acknowledged. And most of it got thrown back to the lower courts to hash out and eventually come back to the high court, rather than the end around approach that Jack Smith was taking in a frantic effort to derail an election. But again, reading the decisions for yourself would do a lot of good with regards to knowing what was actually decided.
Hence the degree of politicization that I mentioned. Also, some laws have a greater impact than others.
We didn’t have to worry about presidential immunity until it was granted.
Granted or acknowledged? Again, you need to read the actual decisions, all the pages, rather than just being spoon-fed whatever take you want to listen to on it. Nothing in that decision had any dramatic effect on how we viewed the Presidency before or after. No one was going to sue the President directly for being the commander in chief because that was specifically part of his job - we already were doing what the Court acknowledged. And most of it got thrown back to the lower courts to hash out and eventually come back to the high court, rather than the end around approach that Jack Smith was taking in a frantic effort to derail an election. But again, reading the decisions for yourself would do a lot of good with regards to knowing what was actually decided.
I’ll side with practically every constitutional effort and an experienced prosecutor on this one. This is exactly what I mean by normalizing.
Granted or acknowledged? Again, you need to read the actual decisions, all the pages, rather than just being spoon-fed whatever take you want to listen to on it. Nothing in that decision had any dramatic effect on how we viewed the Presidency before or after. No one was going to sue the President directly for being the commander in chief because that was specifically part of his job - we already were doing what the Court acknowledged. And most of it got thrown back to the lower courts to hash out and eventually come back to the high court, rather than the end around approach that Jack Smith was taking in a frantic effort to derail an election. But again, reading the decisions for yourself would do a lot of good with regards to knowing what was actually decided.
I’ll side with practically every constitutional effort and an experienced prosecutor on this one. This is exactly what I mean by normalizing.
It's really not that many pages and they normally tend to be interesting reading, even on the boring cases.
kalm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:50 am
I’ll side with practically every constitutional effort and an experienced prosecutor on this one. This is exactly what I mean by normalizing.
It's really not that many pages and they normally tend to be interesting reading, even on the boring cases.
You're both right.
- Because of the limits to official and core acts, it's not the end of the world that some would make it out to be.
- Concern due to the ambiguity and what a President might do and then claim is an official or core act is justified though.
As Ganny has previously stated, this is only the beginning. It will be litigated and established over time.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It's really not that many pages and they normally tend to be interesting reading, even on the boring cases.
You're both right.
- Because of the limits to official and core acts, it's not the end of the world that some would make it out to be.
- Concern due to the ambiguity and what a President might do and then claim is an official or core act is justified though.
As Ganny has previously stated, this is only the beginning. It will be litigated and established over time.
Are the courts prepared for the onslaught of cases that are already occurring? It’s part of the playbook.
“Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals,” Krugman continued. “When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were ‘I don’t know.‘”
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
“Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals,” Krugman continued. “When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were ‘I don’t know.‘”
Krugman is a liar:
-He didn’t resign, he retired.
…I also think that once Krugman's contemporaries begin talking, we'll find more than one skeleton. Krugman was "frocked," that is, temporarily promoted to colonel in February 2023. (Frocked and not even kissed, as the saying goes.)
What is significant is that he never commanded a battalion, despite serving as a battalion executive officer. And Krugman did not serve long enough as a colonel to retire in that grade; see 10 U.S. Code § 1370. Being frocked in February 2023 meant that retiring before February 2026 would entail a reduction in grade to lieutenant colonel unless the Secretary of War or the President waived the requirement. In this case, I think it is safe to say that it did not happen, and so it is fair for us to wonder why. Was he truly offended? Or was there some sort of contretemps that torpedoed his career, and this is his cover story and retirement strategy?
To make the timeline even more clear, Krugman's LinkedIn page indicates he spent August and September on pre-retirement leave. The Marines require that retirement requests be submitted at least 6 months before the desired retirement date. That shows he decided to retire before March 30. So the hooha with Trump/s NBC interview and federalizing Guardsmen took place after Krugman had submitted his application to retire…
When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were ‘I don’t know.
