Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
"It violates separation of powers when a judge thinks that they can enjoin something that a president is doing, that the American people voted for," Johnson said during his weekly press conference.
To be clear, Trump didn't even get 50% of the popular vote (49.8%).
29.5% of Americans over 18 years of age voted for him.
He does not have an overwhelming mandate to destroy the United States.
The majority of Americans didn't vote to keep Trump out of office.
Exactly.
29.5% of Americans over 18 years of age voted for him.
This is a bullshit number because anyone who had a chance to vote against Trump and didn’t is to blame too.
It's still a relevant fact tho
That’s how dictatorships are installed. Fuck these guys.
I mean, he's technically correct: the constitution gives congress the power "to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." The only court the US technically has to have is SCOTUS, although it's hard to imagine them hearing every single federal case.
Interestingly, Congress does not have the power to fire or reduce any judge's salary, except by impeachment.
They absolutely do not have the power to rearrange how the Judicial works. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-1/ALDE_00013557/
They were given the power to CREATE new tribunals, not the power to adjust, remove, or otherwise define how they work, which would be a direct violation of the separation of powers. They are given the ability to create courts and fund them purely as a bureaucratic role, and ABOLISH them, but not otherwise redefine how they are determined to work in AIII. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-5/ALDE_00013561/
Your articles seem to say that congress has periodically rearranged and eliminated "Article III courts," recently avoiding the Constitutional crisis of not paying judges of the eliminated courts by posting them elsewhere. But I'm no lawyer, so maybe I'm misinterpreting "In 1891, Congress enacted legislation creating new intermediate appellate courts and eliminating the then-existing federal circuit courts." and "In 1982, Congress enacted legislation abolishing the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals"
Yes, so they can move them around, but they can't say "Hey, this court is gone now because they're causing the Executive problems". They can't redefine the balance of how they are supposed to work. The judges are guaranteed positions as well, so they can't fire them either.
Well congress hasn’t done shit the last 3 months. All executive orders so why not just eliminate congress….
Fast tracking palpatine
So I guess all the measures people directly voted for, like enshrining abortion into state laws, shouldn't be obstructed for one more second because it's the will of the voters. They don't really care about this factor, only when it's self serving.
Fuck that piece of shit. Speaker Mike Johnson get stuffed.