We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
Article III of our Constitution provides for the judicial branch, but it does not expressly provide the judiciary with any powers other than those it earns in the eyes of the other two branches. It cannot self-enforce its decrees. Article I creates the Congress, and the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary. Article II establishes the presidency, but the Constitution does not specify its checks and balances over the court.
That power is implied, and the implied power is for the executive – who runs the machinery of the federal government, including the cogs and gears that carry guns – to simply say “No” to an out-of-control judiciary. This implied power of defiance is as much a check and balance as any enumerated one, and without it, you would have an unchecked judiciary with hundreds of district court judges presuming to micromanage the legitimate actions of the executive branch.
Judge Roberts’s problem is that he wants to return to something like regular order in the judiciary. What we have is highly irregular order.
John Roberts wants the normal appellate procedures to apply. ...
This was the main takeaway from his unbelievably tone-deaf response to Trump’s, Musk’s, and others’ frustration-driven talk about impeachment.
In normal times, the response to a judge over one dumb decision is the appellate process. But these are not normal times. ... And the answer here is not the appellate process because the appellate process is long, drawn out, and deliberate. The goal of this campaign is to use that delay to effectively strip Donald Trump of the ability to govern.
Attorney Kurt Schlichter
Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones.
Psalm 116:15
Rod Dreher asks, "I don’t understand why the government doesn’t deploy the army and shoot rioters until they stop. Philippe Lemoine, a Frenchman, says it’s not that simple."
Excerpt:
"We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible.
It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower.
I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw ...
Even Marine Le Pen’s recent statements track this line: personal Islamic practice is compatible with the Republic; replacing French law with Sharia is not. French Muslims who are simply citizens practicing their "religious faith" “have no reason to worry” about a Le Pen election victory.
But can one be a practicing Muslim without demanding and practicing Sharia?
