45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)
Discussion
g4ry13 said:
LF5335 said:
g4ry13 said:
Think you've got that confused with us supporting him / the USA!
He's done nothing for us.
You might want to look at his support for Britain in the Falklands War He's done nothing for us.
LF5335 said:
g4ry13 said:
LF5335 said:
g4ry13 said:
Think you've got that confused with us supporting him / the USA!
He's done nothing for us.
You might want to look at his support for Britain in the Falklands War He's done nothing for us.
Other than drag us into his proxy wars.
Strangely Brown said:
Whatever his opinion may have been 42 years ago it is quite clear that he hates the UK now.
ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Can't discuss in 46. Most critics have been silenced and banned from that thread. ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Quite ironic considering the same people on this forum claim Trump does the same thing.
gregs656 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Does the SCOTUS Chevron deference decision affect the DOJ? I haven't looked but I suspect not. I'm looking forward to Congress actually getting their act together and drafting laws that actually work, instead of relying on unelected bureaucrats "interpreting" them without any oversight or come back.
The Chevron decision doesn’t change anything about drafting laws. It shifts the interpretation from agencies to federal courts. It’s a SCOTUS power grab by 6 unelected life time appointed bureaucrats with the expressed intention of rescuing oversight.
It’s a huge change to how the US govt functions.
thatsprettyshady said:
gregs656 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Does the SCOTUS Chevron deference decision affect the DOJ? I haven't looked but I suspect not. I'm looking forward to Congress actually getting their act together and drafting laws that actually work, instead of relying on unelected bureaucrats "interpreting" them without any oversight or come back.
The Chevron decision doesn’t change anything about drafting laws. It shifts the interpretation from agencies to federal courts. It’s a SCOTUS power grab by 6 unelected life time appointed bureaucrats with the expressed intention of rescuing oversight.
It’s a huge change to how the US govt functions.
Congress was always doing its job.
This has nothing to do with how laws are drafted, but who gets the first pass at interpreting them. It was federal agencies, now it’s federal judges.
The prior arrangement was a thorn in the side of corporations who felt the various govt agencies over-regulated them.
gregs656 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
gregs656 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Does the SCOTUS Chevron deference decision affect the DOJ? I haven't looked but I suspect not. I'm looking forward to Congress actually getting their act together and drafting laws that actually work, instead of relying on unelected bureaucrats "interpreting" them without any oversight or come back.
The Chevron decision doesn’t change anything about drafting laws. It shifts the interpretation from agencies to federal courts. It’s a SCOTUS power grab by 6 unelected life time appointed bureaucrats with the expressed intention of rescuing oversight.
It’s a huge change to how the US govt functions.
Congress was always doing its job.
This has nothing to do with how laws are drafted, but who gets the first pass at interpreting them. It was federal agencies, now it’s federal judges.
The prior arrangement was a thorn in the side of corporations who felt the various govt agencies over-regulated them.
thatsprettyshady said:
The prior arrangement, was that last word was given to the federal agencies on interpretations of laws and the court had to abide by that, now that is not the case.
No, the first word was given to agencies. Agency interpretation was challenged in federal court often. g4ry13 said:
Strangely Brown said:
Whatever his opinion may have been 42 years ago it is quite clear that he hates the UK now.
ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Can't discuss in 46. Most critics have been silenced and banned from that thread. ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Quite ironic considering the same people on this forum claim Trump does the same thing.
thatsprettyshady said:
The prior arrangement, was that last word was given to the federal agencies on interpretations of laws and the court had to abide by that, now that is not the case.
This is a perfect example of the government bypassing congress and unilaterally giving the ATF power to ban things. https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-takes-atf...
It's actually a law I happen to agree with (homemade guns don't seem like a fantastic idea) but it doesn't sit right with me that a federal agency is able to do this without the checks and balances of Congress, due to them being able to just "reinterpret the law".
"ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to 'do something' with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation," Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote for himself and Judge Don Willett in largely upholding O'Connor. "That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature."
Baroque attacks said:
g4ry13 said:
Strangely Brown said:
Whatever his opinion may have been 42 years ago it is quite clear that he hates the UK now.
ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Can't discuss in 46. Most critics have been silenced and banned from that thread. ETA: and as I said. This is the 45 thread. 46 is ---> that-a-way.
Quite ironic considering the same people on this forum claim Trump does the same thing.
I don't think obsession is a reason to be banned.
thatsprettyshady said:
This is a perfect example of the government bypassing congress and unilaterally giving the ATF power to ban things.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-takes-atf...
It's actually a law I happen to agree with (homemade guns don't seem like a fantastic idea) but it doesn't sit right with me that a federal agency is able to do this without the checks and balances of Congress, due to them being able to just "reinterpret the law".
"ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to 'do something' with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation," Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote for himself and Judge Don Willett in largely upholding O'Connor. "That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature."
This is a good example of how the process used to exist yes https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-takes-atf...
It's actually a law I happen to agree with (homemade guns don't seem like a fantastic idea) but it doesn't sit right with me that a federal agency is able to do this without the checks and balances of Congress, due to them being able to just "reinterpret the law".
"ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to 'do something' with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation," Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote for himself and Judge Don Willett in largely upholding O'Connor. "That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature."
1. Agency interprets law
2. (Maybe) agency interpretation challenged
3. Court rules
Now
1. Federal judges interpret law
2. (Maybe) interpretation challenged
3. Court rules
The biggest change here is that instead of what would typically be considered experts in that field having the first pass at interpreting the law - which could range from drugs, to airplane safety standards, or waterway protection or what ever it is. It will be unelected federal judges.
Baroque attacks said:
The only ones I’ve seen banned in anyway have been the loons and obsessives. ‘Biden’ had a brief but hectic spell in posting before being shown for the troll he was .
Really ?Hmmm I posted some stuff that was genuine and honestly felt. I also maid the absolutely horrific (and must have been deeply offensive comment to some) of referring to Biden as "sleepy joe"
For that I received a ban. For quite some time I've thought a certain "prolific poster " may have had a hand in that.
To be banned for that is pathetic and just shows how some people are very very prescious and cannot accept any fair criticism of "their man"
I was neither loon nor obsessive and certainly not prolific.
But hey ho if it allows certain types to mold threads the way they want them to go then hey diddle diddle
5 In a Row said:
Am I still right in thinking that the Dems are effectively the equivalent to a centre left Tory party over here (Thatcher era?) and that the GOP is usually fairly far right, although currently in Genghis Khan territory with the current bunch?
No, it's not the 1950s any more. The Dems are as insane & disastrous as Labour. They've have had ties & intern exchanges for decades.Until recently, the Republican Party could have been considered similar to the Conservative party. I.e. Gutless, cowardly and useless. That's changing under Trump and hopefully they can move out the NeoCon warmongers like Nikki Haley, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Mitt Romney and uniparty droids like Mitch McConnell. McConnell is even older than Biden and has himself been freezing up recently.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff