Recent attacks on Trans Americans by the Trump admin

[hollodero]

(06-16-2020, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does the fact that a Trump appointee wrote the majority decision contradict the OP's title? 

Are justices nominated by Trump part of the Trump administration?

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2020, 05:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Are justices nominated by Trump part of the Trump administration?

Bad form to answer a question with a question. A yes or no will do. 

[hollodero]

(06-16-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bad form to answer a question with a question. A yes or no will do. 

OK, so no, for justices imho are not part of any administration.

At least I hope that's still the case.

[BmorePat87]

(06-16-2020, 05:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Are justices nominated by Trump part of the Trump administration?

They are not. The administration would refer to the executive branch. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2020, 05:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, so no, for justices imho are not part of any administration.

At least I hope that's still the case.

Well then most likely think Matt probably shouldn't have brought it up in a thread about the Trump Admin. He most likely found it to be relevant; as did I. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-16-2020, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then most likely think Matt probably shouldn't have brought it up in a thread about the Trump Admin. He most likely found it to be relevant; as did I. 

It's related news because the administration is stripping away trans* rights while SCOTUS is protecting them. It's relevant because it's trans* rights in both situations.

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2020, 06:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's related news because the administration is stripping away trans* rights while SCOTUS is protecting them. It's relevant because it's trans* rights in both situations.

Hell, I agreed it was relevant. 

I just found the relevance to be more about the person who selected both the Admin and the Justice and thought a Justice selected by Trump writing a majority opinion for an LBQTB community might contradict the assertion of the OP. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-16-2020, 06:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I agreed it was relevant. 

I just found the relevance to be more about the person who selected both the Admin and the Justice and thought a Justice selected by Trump writing a majority opinion for an LBQTB community might contradict the assertion of the OP. 

I don't understand how as they are separate branches of government.

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2020, 07:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't understand how as they are separate branches of government.

Yeah, this is one of those times where continued debate is of no benefit. I found it to be contradictory that that a thread designed to blast an administration selected by Trump as it relates to LBGTQ rights contains a posts that applauds a decision supporting LBGQT rights, in which, a Justice selected by Trump wrote the majority opinion. 

You and others don't, no one's going to change; so we'll move on. 

[GMDino]

(06-16-2020, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does the fact that a Trump appointee wrote the majority decision contradict the OP's title? 

Oh, look...the guy who doesn't always defend Trump is making a cute post about how a Trump appointee supported LGBQT rights so the thread about Trump himself attacking them is wrong.


What a hoot.


All seriousness aside the only thing the two cases have in common are they are both about LGBQT.  


But it was an honest effort to swing some praise yoward your boy.  A solid C+ effort.

[hollodero]

(06-16-2020, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then most likely think Matt probably shouldn't have brought it up in a thread about the Trump Admin. He most likely found it to be relevant; as did I. 

I honestly don't care.

[fredtoast]

(06-16-2020, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does the fact that a Trump appointee wrote the majority decision contradict the OP's title? 

Not at all. Lots of Trump appointees have disagreed with him and been fired immediately.  Only difference here is that Trump can't fire a Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court is in no way a part of the "Trump administration".

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2020, 11:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not at all. Lots of Trump appointees have disagreed with him and been fired immediately.  Only difference here is that Trump can't fire a Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court is in no way a part of the "Trump administration".

Outstanding answer right up to the last sentence. 

One of the main reasons folks select a POTUS is who he/she will put on the courts. 

[GMDino]

(06-17-2020, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outstanding answer right up to the last sentence. 

One of the main reasons folks select a POTUS is who he/she will put on the courts. 

"JUdgEs ArENT POliTiCal!"

[BmorePat87]

(06-17-2020, 11:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not at all. Lots of Trump appointees have disagreed with him and been fired immediately.  Only difference here is that Trump can't fire a Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court is in no way a part of the "Trump administration".

This is all correct.

This is why the executive branch under a president is named the "_____ Administration" ("Obama Administration" or "Bush Administration") while SCOTUS is named based off of the presiding chief justice ("Roberts Court" or the "Warren Court"). 

No one would refer to anything that happens under the Roberts Court as being part of the Bush Administration. Presidents directly control the policy of the executive departments and their appointees are responsible for enforcing the administration's agenda in each of their departments. When their appointees fail to follow the president's agenda, he can fire at will. 

The Courts are not bound to a single administration. Their lifetime term ensures that. 

I know you know this. It's basic civics and what my 10th graders learn. If you all keep needing to repeat this, it means you're dealing with trolling that seeks to derail a thread rather than contribute to it. Keep that in mind. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2020, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outstanding answer right up to the last sentence. 

One of the main reasons folks select a POTUS is who he/she will put on the courts. 

Why? Because it’s true and doesn’t conform to your bias?

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2020, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outstanding answer right up to the last sentence. 

One of the main reasons folks select a POTUS is who he/she will put on the courts. 

So how long does this court remain a part of the Trump administration if the same judges are there with a different President?

Obama appointed some of the judges currently on the bench.  So why isn't the Court still part of his administration? 

And what about the fact that there are Trump appointees on both sides of the opinion?  Does that mean the Trump administration agrees with both sides?

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2020, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So how long does this court remain a part of the Trump administration if the same judges are there with a different President?

Obama appointed some of the judges currently on the bench.  So why isn't the Court still part of his administration? 

And what about the fact that there are Trump appointees on both sides of the opinion?  Does that mean the Trump administration agrees with both sides?

The Judges will always be appointed by the President that appointed them and Presidents do so, because they follow their views on matters.

It's been explained they are not members of the Executive Branch I simply made the correlation that each were selected by Trump. 

Perhaps it means Trump and other GOP POTUS select more open-minded Judges. 

As has been mentioned if you do not agree with the overall premise that a post applauding a decision, in which,  judge appointed by trump wrote the majority as contradictory to a thread that condemns the decisions made by admin folks appointed by Trump then we just differ. That's fine; it's not the first and it won't be the last

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2020, 01:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why? Because it’s true and doesn’t conform to your bias?

Yeah, you got me. It didn't conform to my bias..

or

You could have read the sentence in the post you didn't bold.

[hollodero]

(06-17-2020, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, you got me. It didn't conform to my bias..

It also does not conform with your overwhelming and omnipresent attempts to play gotcha and accuse liberals on the board of misdeeds.

And so it's a turned into a page-lomg "discussion" about chief justices not being part of a particular administration. Provoked by, I don't know, I guess you wanting to prove that the OP said something wrong somehow?

Talk about derailing a thread.

-- @ topic btw., yeah all rights to trans people, except for competing in sports and neglecting biology for PC.