The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 14 minutes ago, jonmx said: Trump is appealing the ruling. The judge can scream and shout all he wants, but Trump gets a chance to have some honest judge overturn such an obviously unlawful order. Do you agree that while the ruling is being appealed, Trump must follow the orders of the judge in the meantime? Or do you share the view expressed by our current Vice President that Trump has the right to defy the judges because he is acting in the best interests of the public? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: The Supreme Court did not rule that Biden is not allowed to cancel or forgive student loans. What the court ruled was that the means in which Biden planned to cancel the debt was using the HEROES Act and the court ruled that this was an overreach and Biden didn't have the authority to do so. So what did Biden do? He complied with the ruling, didn't use the HEROES act, and used other means and other laws to achieve a smaller goal. I called you a liar before but that was wrong. You were just ill informed. Now that you know how this all works, if you repeat the same statement you will be proven to be a liar. Correct, he sought the outcome by other means. He ignored the spirit of the law to serve his own desires. So should it arise that Trump does the same thing, well, too bad for you and yours.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 I’m confused by those of you bringing up the Biden student loans. I get that you’re trying to point out hypocrisy: that’s not at all unusual. But beyond that are you saying that Biden’s move justifies what Trump is doing? That since Biden (supposedly) broke the law, it’s OK for Trump to break the law? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 2 minutes ago, RLLD said: Correct, he sought the outcome by other means. He ignored the spirit of the law to serve his own desires. So should it arise that Trump does the same thing, well, too bad for you and yours.... Spirit of the law? There is no law that says that Congress can't forgive student loan. In fact if Congress passed that law today, and supreme court couldn't do a damn thing. You don't understand laws do you? Sprit of the law. What law? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, RLLD said: Correct, he sought the outcome by other means. He ignored the spirit of the law to serve his own desires. So should it arise that Trump does the same thing, well, too bad for you and yours.... If unlike Biden Trump DIRECTLY violates a judge’s ruling are you OK with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: I’m confused by those of you bringing up the Biden student loans. I get that you’re trying to point out hypocrisy: that’s not at all unusual. But beyond that are you saying that Biden’s move justifies what Trump is doing? That since Biden (supposedly) broke the law, it’s OK for Trump to break the law? They're trying to say that since Biden was blocked trying to use the HEROES Act to forgive student loans then he was not allowed to forgive student loans by any other means. It's a really dumb position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 There is precedence for this in our history. Andrew Jackson infamously said “the Supreme Court has made their ruling. Now let them try and enforce it.” When he said that, we were dangerously close to losing our democracy. Jackson was wildly popular with the public and could have seized all political power. The military was with him and no one could have stopped him. In the end he chose not to do so, and backed down. If Trump chooses to directly defy the courts it will be the first time since Jackson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 4 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: They're trying to say that since Biden was blocked trying to use the HEROES Act to forgive student loans then he was not allowed to forgive student loans by any other means. It's a really dumb position. I understand that part and I agree with you. What I don’t understand, because most of them are refusing to say (except for a few openly pro-dictatorship folks at the start of the thread) is whether or not this point justifies Trump defying the courts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 11 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: Spirit of the law? There is no law that says that Congress can't forgive student loan. In fact if Congress passed that law today, and supreme court couldn't do a damn thing. You don't understand laws do you? Sprit of the law. What law? Pretending you care about law is perhaps one of the more amusing antics liberals trot out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: If unlike Biden Trump DIRECTLY violates a judge’s ruling are you OK with that? Pretending there is a difference is the problem. Biden through his malfeasance, has opened the door for Trump to do it "by other means". This is when the behaviors of " I will doit anyway, law be damned, and I dont care" come back to you and yours. This is why you should not accept it when people like Biden step outside. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,799 Posted February 11 26 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: He is interpreting the United States Constitution. Also the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.58912/gov.uscourts.rid.58912.96.0_5.pdf https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-a-president-refuse-to-spend-funds-approved-by-congress Once again I'm left to believe you just got these from some MSDNC source and didn't bother to read them. From your second link: Quote Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to the controversy. Title X in the act is commonly referred to as the Impoundment Control Act (or ICA), and it requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds as a deferment (or a temporary delay) or a recission (a permanent cancellation) of spending. Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending. So, as I've been saying and you and The Girlfriend ignored, he has the power to temporarily pause spending through the current fiscal year. So, unless his 90 day pause crosses a government fiscal year, it appears to be legal. Thanks for clearing that up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Engorgeous George 2,331 Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said: I'm waiting for any of these to get to the Supreme Court and President Trump just waves his Roberts said I can do whatever I want ruling around, so me defying the courts, you said it's legal if it's part of my presidential duties. So long as that is all he waves around. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 6 minutes ago, RLLD said: Pretending you care about law is perhaps one of the more amusing antics liberals trot out. You voted for a felon who has broken more laws his first month than any president in US history Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Engorgeous George 2,331 Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said: People need to stop arguing with jonmx, he would be the guy at Jonestown asking for a refill. Well the grape Flavor-aid was pretty darn tastey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 1 minute ago, TrailGuy said: You voted for a felon who has broken more laws his first month than any president in US history I voted for the person Democrats persecuted through the courts..... I get it that you want to hold on to that fake felon thing, but most of America rejected that tactic. So by all means, keep trotting that out as well......we still dont care. Come up with something new to hide from liberal policy failures.... 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 14 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Once again I'm left to believe you just got these from some MSDNC source and didn't bother to read them. From your second link: So, as I've been saying and you and The Girlfriend ignored, he has the power to temporarily pause spending through the current fiscal year. So, unless his 90 day pause crosses a government fiscal year, it appears to be legal. Thanks for clearing that up! Where has he reported to Congress that he was going to do this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 14 minutes ago, RLLD said: Pretending there is a difference is the problem. Biden through his malfeasance, has opened the door for Trump to do it "by other means". This is when the behaviors of " I will doit anyway, law be damned, and I dont care" come back to you and yours. This is why you should not accept it when people like Biden step outside. You didn’t answer the question. It’s a pretty clear yes or no question. Are you OK with Trump directly defying a judge’s order? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 Lots of obfuscating in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 17 minutes ago, RLLD said: Pretending there is a difference is the problem. Biden through his malfeasance, has opened the door for Trump to do it "by other means". This is when the behaviors of " I will doit anyway, law be damned, and I dont care" come back to you and yours. This is why you should not accept it when people like Biden step outside. Where did Biden use the HEROES Act like he was ordered not to do so? Stop repeating this lie it makes you look foolish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonnyutah 288 Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: You didn’t answer the question. It’s a pretty clear yes or no question. Are you OK with Trump directly defying a judge’s order? But he wont directly defy it. They will just change it up a bit and slightly alter course. Precedent has been set. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,799 Posted February 11 4 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: Where has he reported to Congress that he was going to do this? I dunno, I'm not there. Do you know he didn't? If I can read that, then I'm sure someone in the WH can. It would be kinda dumb for the admin not to do it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real timschochet 6,764 Posted February 11 4 minutes ago, jonnyutah said: But he wont directly defy it. They will just change it up a bit and slightly alter course. Precedent has been set. JD Vance has argued that he can directly defy it if he wants without trying to change it, if he thinks it’s a bad ruling. Do you agree with Vance on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tebok 442 Posted February 11 TrailGuy sure is eviscerating the unhinged MAGA mooks in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,433 Posted February 11 Turd guy getting another beat down before lunch. lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonnyutah 288 Posted February 11 5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: JD Vance has argued that he can directly defy it if he wants without trying to change it, if he thinks it’s a bad ruling. Do you agree with Vance on this? Can he? Of course he can. Should he? No. I dont believe he should in this scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 12 minutes ago, jerryskids said: I dunno, I'm not there. Do you know he didn't? If I can read that, then I'm sure someone in the WH can. It would be kinda dumb for the admin not to do it. Yes I know that he didn't. He used EOs instead. Quote Given current Republican control of the presidency, House and Senate, these ICA procedures seem to provide a straightforward path to reduce federal spending in compliance with federal law. But while Trump has expressed support for using the similar, simple-majority reconciliation process for implementing policy proposals such as tax cuts that would increase the federal deficit, Trump has expressed no such support for the simple-majority rescission process for decreasing federal spending or the deferral process for achieving savings under the ICA. Instead, on the first day of his presidency Trump issued executive orders directing agencies to withhold congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid, energy programs and sanctuary cities. And one week later, the president unilaterally “pause[d]” grants, loans, and other financial assistance, sparking a lawsuit by nonprofit organizations, public health leaders, and small businesses and fear and confusion from many recipients of federal funding. Why? Maybe Trump does not want to use the ICA’s procedures because when he did so during his first administration, he could not get a simple majority of Congress to agree to get rid of funds for the programs he proposed for rescission, even though Republicans had unified control of the federal government. Maybe he fears that, again, members of this new Congress or their constituents will not agree that the programs he wants to cut are “wasteful.” https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/why-trumps-confusion-about-the-impoundment-control-act-is-a-problem-for-him-for-congress-and-for-everyday-americans/ Quote As our fact sheet lays out, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (including in an opinion written by future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist), and the Supreme Court of the United States, have all disavowed the notion of some “inherent Presidential power to impound,” as some in the Trump orbit have tried to argue without legal or textual basis. Not only is there no inherent Presidential power in the Constitution to impound, but there have been several bedrock fiscal statutes enacted to protect Congress’s constitutional power of the purse and prevent unlawful executive overreach, including the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). With this constitutional and statutory background in mind, and building off of the definitions in the ICA, a simple workable definition of impoundment is: Any action—or inaction—that precludes federal funds from being obligated or spent, either temporarily or permanently. It is important to note that there are legally available processes in place for the President to propose to Congress their desire to permanently cancel funding—for Congress’s consideration, including through the annual President’s budget request and the special procedures under section 1012 of the Impoundment Control Act. In addition, the special procedures in section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act also allow for the temporary delay, known as a “deferral”, of certain funding during a fiscal year if one of three narrow conditions is met and the President transmits a special message notifying Congress of such a deferral. However, given the limited purposes for which deferrals are allowed under these Impoundment Control Act procedures, no President has pursued the deferral procedures under the ICA since President Clinton. Nevertheless, at least three Day 1 Executive Orders call for unilateral action to delay the obligation or expenditure of enacted appropriations—that is, they call for unlawful impoundment, or put more specifically, they call for unlawful deferrals, which if withheld long enough can turn into unlawful cancellations—in violation of the Impoundment Control Act and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Ranking Member DeLauro put out a statement addressing the first two actions listed below, with a heavy emphasis on how the actions seek to centralize power at OMB over the authority of the relevant cabinet officials across the Federal government, and how these unlawful freezes create huge uncertainty for anybody that works with the Federal government. https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/fact-sheets/background-unlawful-impoundment-president-trumps-executive-orders Trump and Vought both believe the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional so they are ignoring it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/constitutional-crisis-impoundment-control-act-takes-center-stage-washington Maybe you should have listened to The Girlfriend and you could have avoiding this beat down and embarrassment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,433 Posted February 11 They got this. After the good work on behalf of the untied states taxpayer proceeds then the articles of impeachment against these radical judges need to be filed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,799 Posted February 11 9 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: Yes I know that he didn't. He used EOs instead. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/why-trumps-confusion-about-the-impoundment-control-act-is-a-problem-for-him-for-congress-and-for-everyday-americans/ https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/fact-sheets/background-unlawful-impoundment-president-trumps-executive-orders Trump and Vought both believe the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional so they are ignoring it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/constitutional-crisis-impoundment-control-act-takes-center-stage-washington Maybe you should have listened to The Girlfriend and you could have avoiding this beat down and embarrassment. Embarrassment? You have a pretty low bar for that. But we knew that. Looks like Trump is questioning the lack of impoundment powers for POTUS. If he fails at that, he'll revert to the deferral process laid out by the ICA, so he'll get the deferrals anyway. Speculation is that he might be concerned that Congress may have too many deep staters tied to the USAID grift to approve all of the permanent cuts he'll propose. Makes sense. Thanks for taking time from your busy corporate executive schedule to research this for me. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 5 minutes ago, jerryskids said: Embarrassment? You have a pretty low bar for that. But we knew that. Looks like Trump is questioning the lack of impoundment powers for POTUS. If he fails at that, he'll revert to the deferral process laid out by the ICA, so he'll get the deferrals anyway. Speculation is that he might be concerned that Congress may have too many deep staters tied to the USAID grift to approve all of the permanent cuts he'll propose. Makes sense. Thanks for taking time from your busy corporate executive schedule to research this for me. No problem boyo. I'm happy to teach you cultists something new. Also love the deep staters excuse I'm sure it has nothing to do with trying to consolidate executive power. Watch out for those deep staters! Love this for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cdub100 3,908 Posted February 11 4 hours ago, supermike80 said: Honestly this is kinda interesting to me. To see how this plays out. There are legit arguments on both sides. This truly is a battle of the checks and balances. If you enjoy democracy and how our gubbermint is set up, this is compelling I'm all for checks and balances too. I think the president has way to much power right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,799 Posted February 11 1 minute ago, TrailGuy said: No problem boyo. I'm happy to teach you cultists something new. Also love the deep staters excuse I'm sure it has nothing to do with trying to consolidate executive power. Watch out for those deep staters! Love this for you. Once again, it's in the articles you linked. Implied, not overtly stated, but it says nothing about consolidating exec power. If that were the case, he'd just go the current route. Quote Maybe Trump does not want to use the ICA’s procedures because when he did so during his first administration, he could not get a simple majority of Congress to agree to get rid of funds for the programs he proposed for rescission, even though Republicans had unified control of the federal government. Maybe he fears that, again, members of this new Congress or their constituents will not agree that the programs he wants to cut are “wasteful.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,433 Posted February 11 2 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: No problem boyo. I'm happy to teach you cultists something new. Also love the deep staters excuse I'm sure it has nothing to do with trying to consolidate executive power. Watch out for those deep staters! Love this for you. How does today’s shitt sandwich taste? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 1 minute ago, jerryskids said: Once again, it's in the articles you linked. Implied, not overtly stated, but it says nothing about consolidating exec power. If that were the case, he'd just go the current route. If you've watched the last month of Trump, which clearly you didn't because you thought he was using the ICA procedure, then you would know that everything he has done has been about accumulating and consolidating executive branch power. Maybe read the news? Sheesh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,799 Posted February 11 1 minute ago, TrailGuy said: If you've watched the last month of Trump, which clearly you didn't because you thought he was using the ICA procedure, then you would know that everything he has done has been about accumulating and consolidating executive branch power. Maybe read the news? Sheesh. I asked yesterday and don't recall a response. Is an effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education consistent with accumulating executive power? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,433 Posted February 11 Imagine that. A fascist that wants less control. Amazing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 52 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said: You didn’t answer the question. It’s a pretty clear yes or no question. Are you OK with Trump directly defying a judge’s order? I did not object to Biden flouting the judges ruling, so it would be hypocritical for me to now do so toward Trump. I also did not make a big deal when Obama did his " I have a pen" thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 1 minute ago, jerryskids said: I asked yesterday and don't recall a response. Is an effort to majorly cut funding, reduce headcount, and eliminate entire departments like Education consistent with accumulating executive power? I see you also can't comprehend hyperbole. No, renaming the Gulf of Mexico doesn't give him more executive power either. But are you seriously going to argue that Trump has not taken steps to accumulate and consolidate executive power? We were just talking about the ICA which is a clear indication of this if I need to refresh your memory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted February 11 52 minutes ago, TrailGuy said: Where did Biden use the HEROES Act like he was ordered not to do so? Stop repeating this lie it makes you look foolish. I have already exposed your denial as being a lie, if you insist to keep pretending the reverse is true, I leave that to you of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 Just now, RLLD said: I did not object to Biden flouting the judges ruling I'm gonna keep calling you a liar every time you say this, liar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrailGuy 554 Posted February 11 Just now, RLLD said: I have already exposed your denial as being a lie, if you insist to keep pretending the reverse is true, I leave that to you of course. No you haven't, you just keep repeating your lie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
