[–] [deleted] 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 


[–] mynewaccountagain 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Read the rest of it and see it's the SEC. Or go to a better source like https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-sec/sec-judge-appointments-unconstitutional-us-high-court-says-idUSKBN1JH224 instead of some idiot rehashing "according to Reuters"

[–] Bigdeal 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I am not sure that Reuters is a better source. While the original does add a lot of commentary there is nothing wrong with its take on the subject. Reuter is going to spin things also and while this ruling is only for the SEC it does cover a lot of other out of control federal agencies that also appoint these so called judges.

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Well we found out why there have been so many judges softballing illegals

[–] xobodox 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Power to Fire needs to be Power to Execute, Power to put before a firing line, etc..

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

reversing the government’s previous stance supporting the SEC taken by the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama

The ruling, authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan

Even the liberal wing of the Court realizes that the previous administration was on the wrong side of some things. Interesting.

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Except RBG and Sotomayor. Basically Satanists to whatever is good for white males.

[–] ruck_feddit 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Looks to me like the SCOTUS justices who dissent on something as straight forward as this should be replaced too.

[–] SweetChicken 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

You mispelled ‘wet worked’

[–] ruck_feddit 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I followed right along with the reference. Too bad @clamhurt_legbeard stubbed his cunt rushing in to act like a faggot.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

This is a land of LAWS.

You can go back to Mexico if you like beheading jusges so much.

[–] Bigdeal 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You missed that the two dissenters are the most liberal judges.

[–] ruck_feddit 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"Missed" insinuates people don't know which (((judges))) are which.

[–] RevDrStrangelove 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

So... "Washingtonpost24.com". What is that? If you search the headline no well known news source mentions it. Is this fake?

[–] Chiefpacman 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It looked pretty fake, and the article is poorly written


Somewhat real though. Not sure if this means Trump can fire old judges though..

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

New York Post has it too.

[–] CheeseboogersGhost 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

If you think it was jewy before then you aint seen nothing yet

[–] ArsCortica 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm not entirely familiar with the American legal system - does the president (i.e., the executive branch) directly appoint judges (i.e. members of the legislative branch) when the two technically are supposed to stay the fuck away from each other due to the "Checks and Balances" system?

Being able to appoint or throw out judges because they support or do not support the politics of the current president doesn't really seem like a bright idea unless you want said president to be above the law.

[–] CuriosityOnFire 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The judicial branch eventually dies. How do you think people get in there? The executive branch or legislative branch appoints them, for life. So the other 2 branches can never control most of the judiciary.

that's... the check and balances.

Imagine property rights and contracts and consent instead, that would be horrible.

[–] HerbieTancock 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There are 3 branches. Judges arent actually members of the legislative branch, but a seperate judicial branch. They are supposed to objectively interpret the laws that are created by the legislative branch, Congress and the Senate. They are occasionally accused of "legislating from the bench", or interpreting a law to coincide with their personal political beliefs, and therefore changing the current understanding and application of certain laws, rather than in the spirit of the law as it was written originally. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gets a lot of heat for seemingly political activism disguised as non-partisan objective interpretation. How lawyers get to become judges varies greatly depending on the level of responsibility. In most states, local-level judges are voted into office by citizenry, but if a judge retires before their term is complete, the replacement is appointed by the governor of that state.

[–] ArsCortica 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

mixing up the legislative and the judicial branch

I am retarded. Rest assured, giving the executive branch in the form of the president the power to boot out judges which have fallen out of his favor is a dangerous thing unless there is clear, precise evidence that they abused the powers of their office - something that admittedly is hard to come up with when it comes to said judges interpreting certain laws one or another rather than defying them outright.

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This isn't about real judges. This concerns "administrative judges", who are direct employees of the various regulatory agencies.

[–] Xax 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Administrative judges are a cancer on the US justice system. They are not part of the justice system, they are part of the executive branch that appointments them within the various cabinets.

There's nothing in the US Constitution about the executive branch having justification to set up such courts.

[–] littul_kitton 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

These are "administrative law judges". They are hired bureaucrats who handle minor disputes.

Suppose you are in a restaurant and the waiter brings you the wrong food. The two of you argue and cannot come to an agreement. What happens next? You work it out with the restaurant manager.

Administrative law judges are the restaurant managers of the U.S. Government. They are employees who try to calm people down and get an agreement.

But what happens if you disagree with the restaurant manager? You take it to the real court, with real judges appointed by the leader and approved by the legislature. It's the same with administrative law judges. If either party disagrees, the administrative court decision is thrown in the trash.

What happens to a restaurant manager who annoys the restaurant owners? The company directors fire him. Administrative law judges are the same. They are hired employees, and the nation's director (President) can fire them.

The actual U.S. court judges are hard to fire. They are not mere government employees. They can only be removed by the impeachment process, a trial where the House of Representatives votes for charges, and the Senate then conducts a trial. In two-plus centuries, only 8 U.S. Judges have been removed by impeachment, with another 3 resigning before conviction.

[–] randomBit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Oh, Thank God! I'm honestly not tired of winning yet.

[–] thantik 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Just wait until these expanded powers are handed to a democrat president, you dumbass. Nobody should be cheering the expanded powers of presidency. This just means more extreme whiplash when the other party gets elected.

Nobody should ever be happy about our government (no matter the position) having MORE power...

[–] wonderfuldonut 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Root out all those that are distorter's of the rule of law, fire every single one of their sorry arses! Make sure they can never apply to be considered for position of judge again. They have proved they have no respect for justice.

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)