Comments by "guido toth" (@guidototh6091) on "WFAA" channel.

  1. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from government taking their rights. Roe and Casey determined that the right to have an abortion was an individual choice. Alito in the Dobbs case took that right from individuals and handed it to politicians. And they aren't done yet.
    7
  2. Trump should be held in contempt of court
    6
  3. The issue isn't deportation. It's Trump using martial law.
    3
  4. Yes. The judge does.
    3
  5. Amazing how Trumpers hate the First Amendment
    3
  6. Of course he has the power to do so
    3
  7. Lol no. Federal judges have been doing this since 1803
    3
  8. You just gave more money to the companies who make Plan B and the stores that sell them, so they now have incentive to make more! Thanks for helping!
    3
  9.  @allaboutroofing2  You thinking Plan B is abortion is hilarious.
    3
  10. The legal issue isn't deportation. It's martial law.
    3
  11. Of course judges have such power. The Supreme Court settled that issue over 200 years ago.
    3
  12. He can order the President to do so
    2
  13. False.
    2
  14. The 10th Amendment does not apply here. It wasn't even the basis of Alito's horrible decision. What DOES apply are the 9th and 14th Amendments which show that the Bill of Rights are not exclusive to the enumerated rights. Roe and Casey recognized that individuals have the right to make such choices themselves. Alito and friends took away this right and handed it to politicians.
    2
  15. The Executive must obey Article III court rulings.
    2
  16. ​ @Shawn-d6b2e LOL no. A single Federal Judge can enjoin the Executive. In the legal world the Judge is referred to "as the Court."
    2
  17. It isn't over. The push back is just starting.
    2
  18. ​ @DarkmanRides No court found him in contempt so you lose
    2
  19. You like giving a President war powers when there is no war? I'll remind you when a Democrat is in the White House.
    2
  20. False
    2
  21. The Executive must obey an Article III court order
    2
  22. @davidmhale521  When did he do that? By the way. That is a rhetorical question. I know he didn't. But give it your best shot.
    2
  23. @MikeJohnson-cp5if  Go read Marbury v Madison
    1
  24. ​ @michaeln-g1e Not the issue. The Executive has the power to deport them. The issue is his use of the Alien and Sedition act which bypasses due process in times of war and was used to unlawfully imprison Japanese Americans in WW2.
    1
  25. ​ @MikeJohnson-cp5if  Read Marbury v Madison. This isn't even up for debate.
    1
  26. Even the President must follow court orders
    1
  27. ​ @MikeJohnson-cp5if  Congress need not modify Marbury. Marbury stands for the proposition that Article III courts can invalidate statutes or executive action for violating the Constitution.
    1
  28. ​ @teresaxaundria6748 The judge has the power to issue injections over the Executive. Not up for debate. Trump's uses of the Alien and Sedition act is the issue. Not the deportation itself.
    1
  29. ​ @MikeJohnson-cp5if Do you even know what the legal issue here is?
    1
  30. Yes they do
    1
  31. ​@Shawn-d6b2e The judge is a Federal District Judge of the DC District. That IS an Article III court. If Trump doesn't like it, he can appeal it but he must follow it.
    1
  32.  @happity  The Bill of Rights actually says that the list isn't exclusive...
    1
  33. She is free to be racist. She is free to batter someone.
    1
  34. Trump has the power to deport them. That isn't the issue. The issue is the Alien and Sedition Act...
    1
  35. @MikeJohnson-cp5if  No. The court has enjoined Trump against using this statute until it can make a final decision. Ask yourself why Trump didn't use regular procedure to deport them, assuming they were deportable.
    1
  36. ​@MikeJohnson-cp5if Read Marbury v Madison. In 1803 the US Supreme Court settled this issue. By the way, Judge Boasberg is the senior judge for the US District Court in DC.
    1
  37. Go read Marbury v Madison (1803).
    1
  38. ​@DarkmanRides The work around, as you called it, was under a different statutory authority. So no.
    1
  39. Abortions in many red states are basically abolished at this point. Of course people with money and means can get abortions but the poor will suffer. They always do.
    1
  40. He's right
    1
  41. Most abortions don't even occur at abortion clinics anymore. The woman takes medication to induce an abortion. She can even do it at home.
    1
  42. Trump wants martial law.
    1
  43. False
    1
  44. That's not the issue. It's about Trump using the Alien and Sedition Act to do so.
    1
  45. ​@MikeJohnson-cp5if The Court has the power to issue orders to him. If you want a President to have the power to ignore Article III courts, then don't complain when a Democrat in office does it. And the courts can hold his officials in contempt. Fines and imprisonment. I hope it doesn't come to that. But we shall see.
    1
  46. Judges have had this power since the early 1800s
    1
  47. President must obey court orders. Period.
    1
  48. @MikeJohnson-cp5if  False. The US Supreme Court decided this in 1803 in Marbury v Madison. It's literally the first case you read in Constitutional Law class in law school.
    1
  49. @MikeJohnson-cp5if  Then by all means, show me where the US Supreme Court has ruled that a president can ignore an Article III court's order.
    1