Yes very hard to find . Male or female. The infection you refer to is not gender specific.

Like a bar exam they should have a constitution exam and have to pass said exam.

I think womanhood in this culture have been infected with liberalism and entitlement. A leader with reason and character is going to be VERY hard to find here

It's what you get when you appoint idealogues to the Bench.

i suspect as long as the deep state is enriched by death and destruction the ridiculous fight will continue. I think Most people would not care about any other group if they were not taught to hate.

i would like to hear Sessions put out some facts about the Evil Hag.
Thank goodness that she was not the first woman President as I love and respect the fairer sex.
The women of this country deserve a woman president who is a leader with reason and character.

(1) Citizenship was a matter of states rights as impacted by the 14th amendment. But “We the People” were the framers rather than the populace of the to-be-endorsing member states and there is no explicit condition(s) of citizenship defined by that term. Birthplace and birthright or oath of allegiance should serve adequately. Prior to the 14th Amendment, wasn’t citizenship defined by the States and not under federal interpretation?
(2) Do you not agree that when non-citizens are within our borders they accept our laws and become subject to treatment of those laws within the US Constitution? (Except of course, those with diplomatic immunity…)
(3) I did not intend to imply that you used the term “allow” — I do find the term loosely applied in textbooks and articles. And I will look further at the context of “allowing” entrance of foreigners.

Yes sometimes more powerful than Justice.

Wow I had no idea that court was basically ignoring the law and constitution.

Funny...I read about this, days before I ever heard it announced on the MSM. If they DID mention it, they certainly hid it well.

"Would you kindly point out the reference in the US Constitution that it applies only to US citizens?"

It is right there in the first seven words of the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The Constitution outlines which powers We the People are ceding to be exercised by a Federal Government established by us and set up to operate on our behalf. It can not apply to foreigners for several reasons:

1. Foreigners are prohibited from participating by representation in our government either through voting or as elected officials.
2. Citizens of one nation have no authority to decide policy on behalf of another nation. The First Amendment notes that one of the protected rights is Association, which first and foremost identifies which Nation/State an individual Associates with.
3. One of the purposes of citizenship is to establish which nation's laws are of primary application to that individual. Allegiance states that one is under the protection of such a nation and that in return patronage of that nation and participation as a citizen are the duties and rewards. One can not owe allegiance to more than one nation at any given time, and as allegiance is a contract of sorts, BOTH parties must voluntarily agree to the recognition of allegiance or any change to such.

Note: Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to apply exclusively to freed slaves (according to its author), who at that time had no national association: they were not Citizens of any nation - including the United States. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were intended to grant these freed slaves (disenfranchised citizens of the world) full Citizenship within the United States and recognition of the rights they had hitherto been denied. Any interpretation since then extending protection to non-US Citizens has been done by activist Courts and is void of any real or legal standing.

"BTW, no branch of the government should ever be cast in the terns of “allowing” anything."

I agree, which is why I never said anything of the sort.

One thing the Federal Government is specifically empowered with in the Constitution, however, is allowing the entrance - either temporary or permanent - of non-citizens into this nation. Immigration policy is specifically delegated to Congress; treaties to the Senate in particular for ratification. Guest accommodations (visas, temporary work permits, etc.) are usually also set by Congress but in this specific case, Congress gave the President authorization in the 1950's to deny entry into the United States citizens of specific nations deemed to be a threat to the United States at the sole discretion of the President and for whatever reason he deemed fit. Congress could (if it chose) revoke this power grant.

Would you kindly point out the reference in the US Constitution that it applies only to US citizens? The US Constitution (body) applies to government functions; the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) enumerate restrictions upon the government owing to the people. BTW, no branch of the government should ever be cast in the terns of “allowing” anything. Nor is anyone or office ever “given" a specific power; either that power is enumerated in the US Constitution or consistent with the enumerated powers therein. But please tell me who is it that does this “allowing” and who it is that is enabled to “give” a specific power?

Aw, c'mon Dan, don't be a bad sport. What the heck is a few jihadists here and there. All they want to do is religiously kill you and your family, with glee, so that we can then tell Palestinians, "See? What happens in Israel stays in Israel, so let's continue with the "peace process." Even though every time its tried its broken by the Arabs. We have to ask ourselves, how many times are we to be taken for fools before we wise up and realize that whether it is Palestinians, or whatever group you name there will never be peace between Israel and Arabs. Hell, they've been fighting with each other for a thousand years.

I would add, "I could care less if the Russians TRIED to affect the election" by putting out facts about Hillary.

it's a good start

The 9th Circuit court has a 90% overturn rate. You have to give judges some latitude. It is expected that there will be differences of interpretation of law. I would not like to remove a judge from office who gets it "right" more often than they get it "wrong." But I would like to remove a judge from office that demonstrates they more often get it "wrong" than "right."

That is a generous overturn rate.
Is there any sitting Judge who is overturned half the time by higher courts?

+1

Instead of a 10% reduction in pay, how about any judge who decisions are overturned on appeal more than 50% of the time is automatically removed from office.

That's a novel idea. It would certainly be more effective than impeachment, which I think has only been used one time total in history against the Judicial Branch. The power of the purse is an effective one!

one for the gipper

Every time the sup court overturns a court. Thsie judges should get a 10% reductuion in all future pay, for each occurrence.

Yeah, blarman, stop picking on weaselly legalese contortionists who dream to gift us with open borders.
We need to do our globalist part with being overrun by people who hate us just like self-loathing Germany did.
It's just terrible we are better off due to just enough of us being so mean-spirited and selfish.

I know. I'm an offense to everything Progressive. ;)

First they try to keep Trump from being elected. Then they try to keep him from doing anything. Then they try to gather evidence to impeach him. When will this nonsense stop. Mueller has spend $7million of OUR money on his witchhunt. Personally, I could care less if the Russians TRIED to affect the election like Obama did in several countries during HIS presidency. If the Russians or anyone else want to advertise their preference for a candidate, let them. If they try to hack the election, we should be spending that $7 million on ways to secure our voting.