PP: "I am nothing like Trump."
Also PP: runs on the exact same policies, word for word.
Archangel1313
joined 3 weeks ago
The Constitution does not support that school of thought. It is very clear, that the rights it affords are universal and apply to everyone in the country. It says nothing about being a citizen or not.
There are no "kinks in the system".
The idea is that the law is the law, no matter which court is making the ruling. If the president is in violation of the Constitution, then any judge has the authority to stop it.
They can appeal that decision if they choose to, but it's not like there are some judges that are allowed to determine what's legal, and others that aren't. If the order is illegal, it should be stopped as soon as possible...not weeks or months later, when the Supreme Court finally gets involved.
Every time I listen to Poilievre talk about "deregulating resource extraction"...all it reminds me of, is how back in the 80's, Conservatives in BC allowed the province to be strip mined and clear cut by US companies, who shipped all those resources south of the border for refinement...then sold it all back to us at a premium.
The government got their cut off the top, and didn't have to spend a dime...but Canada lost a ton of wealth, and not one long term job was produced.
It's short-sighted and wasteful policies like that, that basically ended the Conservative party in BC. Let's not repeat their mistakes on a National scale, please.
And he wonders why people hate him? smh.
I'm pretty sure the 1st amendment nullifies this argument.
That's a lot of fingers to count. He must have had the entire staff of the White House holding up both hands.
That's not "lifesize". That's more like "half-size".
Uugh. He talks like he's suffering from a concussion.
Except that's how the entire judicial system works. Saying that a lower court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling, undermines that entire system, since every new case begins in the lower courts. A ruling like this, would effectively make it impossible to bring any case against the federal government, since the starting point for litigation would now be considered invalid.
Lend him a ton of money and then threaten to collect.
As long as it's peer reviewed, this is fine. If they want to try and pass off faulty research as if it were valid, then all they're going to do is embarrass themselves.