Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 373117)

Or actually, the law makes it squarely within the President's legal authority to get away with being a fucking bigot.

One would think that the members of the high court would figure out a way to keep anybody, including the president, from blatantly discriminatory behavior. If the law does not protect people from bigoted acts, it seems to me it's the high court's responsibility to make adjustments in the law. Seems to me that blithely saying "Well that's the law for ya", isn't what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.

See below...reckon this was squarely within der Fuhrer's legal authority according to the nazi high court.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...o_%2820%29.jpg

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 373151)

You obviously don't understand what "rule of law" even means. Its definition "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws" is something Trump constantly tries to undermine with his impulsive brainfarts, as he did with versions 1&2 of his Muslim ban, not to mention his recent border fiasco, transgender ban, his Executive Orders on sanctuary cities and his incessant attacks on DOJ, free press and the truth.

Originally Posted by whell (Post 373156)

You obviously don't understand that ver 1 and 2 were not at issue before the SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by whell (Post 373129)

This ruling means little more than a demonstration that one SCOTUS vote separates us from upholding the rule of law vs throwing the rule of law under the bus.

Originally Posted by mpholland (Post 373152)

Neither a Trump nor a current SCOTUS fan, but interpreting law is exactly what the Supreme court is for. Changing the laws is what the legislative branch is for.