Multiple busloads of migrants were dropped off at Vice President Kamala Harris’s resi

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i think gorsuch has a point, but i don’t know if we know that covid isn’t still a crisis among people
who are crossing illegally.

in any event, unlike you, i don’t expect those on my side to tow the line 100% of the time. i like people who think, not sheep who bleat what they are told.

I love Gorsuch.

I don't think Wayne understands what legislating from the bench is. Gorsuch was doing the opposite of that. His choice was to strike down a policy, not create one.

And he also pointed out even though the border crisis, in his opinion, was no longer a Covid one, that it is still a crisis. Don't see how any of that makes him a Rino as Wayne implied. Republicans ("Conservatives") would agree with Gorsuch that, in his words, "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.” As well, they would agree, as they have been vociferously saying, that the border situation is a crisis.

Democrats (Progressives), on the other hand, for the past hundred years, have acted as if the Court should create policies. And they have a problem with admitting that there is any unusual crisis at the border--nor do they seem anxious to stem the tide of border crossers.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think Wayne understands what legislating from the bench is. Gorsuch was doing the opposite of that. His choice was to strike down a policy, not create one.

And he also pointed out even though the border crisis, in his opinion, was no longer a Covid one, that it is still a crisis. Don't see how any of that makes him a Rino as Wayne implied. Republicans ("Conservatives") would agree with Gorsuch that, in his words, "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.” As well, they would agree, as they have been vociferously saying, that the border situation is a crisis.

Democrats (Progressives), on the other hand, for the past hundred years, have acted as if the Court should create policies. And they have a problem with admitting that there is any unusual crisis at the border--nor do they seem anxious to stem the tide of border crossers.

You really dont pay attention do you ... who voted to keep it? and are now legislating from the bench.. and republicans suddenly support it.

yes the daggers are already out for Gorsuch from the faithful who are disgusted he broke ranks ...

but please keep thinking that's not happening

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You really dont pay attention do you ... who voted to keep it? and are now legislating from the bench.. and republicans suddenly support it.

yes the daggers are already out for Gorsuch from the faithful who are disgusted he broke ranks ...

but please keep thinking that's not happening

I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.

It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.

It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.

if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench

I never made such a suggestion

Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench

And I wrote

“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “


Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth

Not sure how you misread my meaning?

In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device