No Kings 2.0

[RazorV66]

Except that he isn't enforcing the laws of the country.  He's ruling by decree and shoving in judges who will allow him to do what he wants.

This is what a king/divinely appointed ruler does.   He doesn't negotiate with anyone or listen to other people.  It's his way or prison-way.  The judges don't follow the law of the land; they follow whatever the leader desires.

....like a third and even fourth term.  Or "president for life" --and both of those are against our Constitution.  He has also taken on the role that the states had reserved for themselves in the Constitution.

I would personally love it if he stuck to the limits of the office instead of sneaking around its power limitations through persuading Congress to not confirm appointments that would block his overstepping.

A democracy is all about understanding that there are many sides to an issue and that as society progresses our laws need to also progress (there are no ancient Roman laws about speed limits because nobody back then was dashing around roads at 100 mph or faster.)  It's about negotiating things to come to a wiser procedure, not about pretending that one guy is some sort of divinity who has all the right answers.

Thats a cool story.

Who is stopping the government from opening back up again?

[Quantum12]

Thats a cool story.

Who is stopping the government from opening back up again?

  Both the Republicans and Democrats. It takes two.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Except that he isn't enforcing the laws of the country.  He's ruling by decree and shoving in judges who will allow him to do what he wants.

This is what a king/divinely appointed ruler does.   He doesn't negotiate with anyone or listen to other people.  It's his way or prison-way.  The judges don't follow the law of the land; they follow whatever the leader desires.

....like a third and even fourth term.  Or "president for life" --and both of those are against our Constitution.  He has also taken on the role that the states had reserved for themselves in the Constitution.

I would personally love it if he stuck to the limits of the office instead of sneaking around its power limitations through persuading Congress to not confirm appointments that would block his overstepping.

A democracy is all about understanding that there are many sides to an issue and that as society progresses our laws need to also progress (there are no ancient Roman laws about speed limits because nobody back then was dashing around roads at 100 mph or faster.)  It's about negotiating things to come to a wiser procedure, not about pretending that one guy is some sort of divinity who has all the right answers.

Actually there were quite a few traffic laws in ancient Rome. Not really speed laws but because of congested road conditions and the fact that all traffic by cart or animal was greatly limited in all cities, they weren't really necessary. Only the rich or powerful could ride in the day or public works carts for construction and rubbish removal. The shop deliveries were limited to nighttime.  Funny what can be found if you actually look. 

https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...?tid=30501

[BeyondKnowledge]

  Both the Republicans and Democrats. It takes two.

Yes, it tales both sides to agree on letting government work but only one is needed to stop it. Strange how that works isn't it.

[Quantum12]

Yes, it tales both sides to agree on letting government work but only one is needed to stop it. Strange how that works isn't it.

I believe equal balance is the best option. There in no balance in this world. Just my thoughts.

[UltraBudgie]

The judges don't follow the law of the land; they follow whatever the leader desires.

How to tell everyone you don't actually read the opinions the courts issue, without actually saying that. Opinions where they very explicitly detail the applicable laws that are in scope, what facts are before the court, the judicial opinions that have come before, and why they believe their actions are in concordance with the law. You sound like you only read biased hysterical takes that ignore the nuance of the source material. Byrd, I really expected better of you. To be fair, those misrepresentations are what make up 98% of the mainstream media, because sensationalism sells, but still.

[Sky727]

What has he done, king-like?

Only paid actors or brainwashed idiots would protest a king in a country that has no kings. People need to stop listing to Euro News and the likes of CNN as both and a few others will evidently rot their reasoning abilities.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Only paid actors or brainwashed idiots would protest a king in a country that has no kings. People need to stop listing to Euro News and the likes of CNN as both and a few others will evidently rot their reasoning abilities.

Oh I am a mega idiot, cant even spell good, and made up my own punctuation standard. 

But when I think "No Kings" I dont think a literal monarch.  I think more like an autocrat. Or someone who decrees things on Twitter and then through executive order regardless of it's constitutionality. 

Example: 

Using the DHS jurisdiction over the TSA line to let Kristi  Noem politicize the added wait time and blame it on The Democrats and their futile attempt to save the ACA. 

Our airport is on the "This violates The Hatch Act" refuse to show list. 

In 2013, the last time they government shut down over the ACA, it was reversed, but i dont remember inflammatory videos by Johnson for TSA.

Its stuff like that, where the executive oversteps itself with a stone cast in a house of glass. 

So the term king is easy to apply.  But it's all "political hyperbole." 

And Fascist, dictator, king, megalomaniac with a messiah complex, are all things are under a "no kings" banner.

Much like how pedophile, satanist, NWO, evil, and communist is used for every democrat president.

[RichardHurt]

How to tell everyone you don't actually read the opinions the courts issue, without actually saying that. Opinions where they very explicitly detail the applicable laws that are in scope, what facts are before the court, the judicial opinions that have come before, and why they believe their actions are in concordance with the law. You sound like you only read biased hysterical takes that ignore the nuance of the source material. Byrd, I really expected better of you. To be fair, those misrepresentations are what make up 98% of the mainstream media, because sensationalism sells, but still.

How often do you follow the original opinion when is opossed to your own?
And if you were to have such a position of power why would you allow such seen clear positions of power to be allowed to besome law of land that presidents over the lesser?

[UltraBudgie]

How often do you follow the original opinion when is opossed to your own?

I dip my beak in occasionally. I don't pretend to be anything more than a legal dilettante, with some specific experience. I'll look at source opinion both to back up my assertions and held opinions, and to see what people are objecting to with things I disagree with. I don't think there's a particular bias other than what catches my attention? The thing I find interesting about court opinions is that they're quite nuanced and technical; they don't shy away from complex language and expression. Hard to read. But, to actually read and understand them forces one to internalize a level of consideration that brings new light to the issues, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with where their conclusions lead.

And if you were to have such a position of power why would you allow such seen clear positions of power to be allowed to besome law of land that presidents over the lesser?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that all institutions are merely a tool of power? Cynically, I suppose that's true. But the institutions themselves require an internal integrity of principal in order to maintain their form in society. I do believe that the vast majority of judges and justices believe in the rule of law, and in the process of rational application of law. The law however derives from the will of the people, within the framework of their society. Political influence and popular opinion do influence the focus of the court. But if the court begins to ignore the law and abandons the practice of jurisprudence, it cuts its own throat. And I guess that's what Democrats are asserting has happened. But it turns out, they don't actually read the court's statements and instead rely on hot-takes, spin, and feelz. I guess it's called "ActBlue" and not "ThinkBlue" for a reason.