We have a presidency that has acted like royalty or a dictatorship, is my point. The SCOTUS, by an alarmingly slim margin of 5 to 4, brought them somewhat to heel, but the damage has WAY been done.
How DO you feel about presidential signing statements that significantly amend or create exceptions to newly-signed law, ace? Or about policies about prisoner treatment (as just one example) that fly in the face of morality, convention and treaty, which got created in the Oval Office without any oversight from anybody? Doesn't that seem a bit unilateral? Do you have a problem with those things? I certainly do, but I'd love to hear your reasoning if you don't.
The question of whether you think those things actually happened is a DIFFERENT question. I'm less interested in your answer to that other question, but I suppose if you have to give your answer to it, feel free. Please do NOT use that second question as a means to not have to answer the first one. Not that you'd ever be that intellectually dishonest--I'm just pointing out one mistake you might make if you weren't paying attention.
