Interesting that when presented with facts contrary to your position you simply duck away.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Interesting that when presented with facts contrary to your position you simply duck away.

---

More like I have a life other than Texags and I have found you have absolutely no interest in discussing things because you know you are always right or at least you are in your mind.

There is no point in a discussion with you as a result.

As to the matter at hand, part of why we have a Senate and a House was to distribute what most of our founding fathers felt was the largest part of power in the Federal government. I will grant you that due to a variety of issues that I think are against the Constitution, the Executive Branch has become more powerful but that is not under any circumstance I have read or using common sense and reading the Constitution itself seen where that was the intent of our Founding Fathers (yes Hamilton wanted a strong executive and a very strong Federal government). It doesn't make common sense either that our Founding Fathers would want a strong President over the Hoise and Senate given they fought a war over a strong executive (The King) and the We The People part of the Constitution was handed to the House as the one directly elected part of the US government.

That said, I know I am wrong and I am sure you will make sure to tell me.

ETA. Federalist 51 talks about the separation of powers and the need for checks and balances. It talks about the system is set up to avoid the ambition of one branch to dominate so we have checks and balances with only Congress having the power to remove people from the other branches because they were more directly accountable to the people.

ftc is the most patriotic person you've ever known... Until the topic challenges a Trump administration talking point, or the US Constitution. Then he becomes a total flunky. But he's paid well so he'll happily give up his love and devotion of country for his demagogue

You are being extremely intellectually dishonest if you don't think these activist judges have flagrantly crossed the line over the last few years.

Stop lying.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are being extremely intellectual dishonest if you don't think these activist judges have flagrantly crossed the line over the last few years.

Stop lying.

---

Activist Judge = Judge with whom you disagree

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are being extremely intellectual dishonest if you don't think these activist judges have flagrantly crossed the line over the last few years.

Stop lying.

---

Activist Judge = Judge with whom you disagree

---

Yes, we know thats how the left thinks.


I want judges who objectively interpret the law, not ones who wipe their asses with it while they do everything they can to service Marxism.

The Supreme Court has explicitly spelled out that many of these judges have over stepped their duties and responsibilities. If you disagree with that take it up with them.