I think you misread the name of the judge, it's Messitte, not Merrite, and he was appointed by Clinton not Carter.

You contend that this was a political ruling and not based in law. You contend that a judge appointed by a Democrat cannot rule against Democrats. Would you contend that this holds for Republican appointed judges as well? If so, then surely some Republican judge would have made a similar ruling against Clinton or Obama .

Did you read all of the NBC news article? It's main point (as I read it) was the difficulty any plaintiff would have in establishing standing (the right to participate in a case). I suspect, if it goes to SCOTUS, only Congress as a whole will be allowed standing. But if say the AG of some state gets standing, then what might be gained? Through deposition, access to Trump's business and income tax records, things that might do discredit to Trump (and Republicans) in subsequent elections. You might say that this is just the Democrats being political (and I would agree). But what is wrong with that? Originally the word politics described citizens' concern for the well being of their society. Only idiots (in the original meaning) were concerned only with their self interests.

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-extremist-political-movement-recklessly-engages-in-civil-discourse/

New Extremist Political Movement Recklessly Engages In Civil Discourse
July 24, 2018

LONG BEACH, CA—A small but rapidly growing subset of Americans have been gathering in hordes to engage in dangerous acts of polite discourse. These impassioned radicals are embracing extreme positions of affability and toxic cordiality, abandoning the long-held progressive ideals of extreme partisanship and treating anyone who is not committed to your tribe like an insect to be crushed.

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that it is currently tracking more than 2,300 extremist civility groups in the country, citing an alarmingly high rate of instances of open interactions at unprecedented levels of respectfulness.
“It’s like they’re trying to set the clock back,” said extremism advocate Duncan Whitehead. “We thought the troubling days of people like G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw—two men with wildly opposing viewpoints yet a disturbing amount of respect for each other— were far behind us.”

Liberal activist Danica Hartley says the movement is driven by “privilege.” “If you’re treating your neighbor with respect, you’re part of the problem,” she said. “Our party didn’t spend decades enraging and dividing people just to have groups like these reigniting the tired, dead philosophy of loving your neighbor.”

One of the most disquieting features of this movement is that the cult-like membership includes people who come from diverse ethnicities, genders, ages, religions, and political parties. “Some people think that super far-alt-right neo-Nazi Jews like Ben Shapiro could never sit in the same room with a secular leftist like Sam Harris, but people need to wake up to the reality that this is happening. Friendships are forming between liberals and conservatives at a disgusting rate. This isn’t just a couple guys meeting to banter across party lines in Dave Rubin’s garage. This is a growing movement and it’s getting bigger,” warned civility awareness activist Marlena Parveneh.

Even with YouTube demonetizing videos and Twitter suspending the accounts of people who have engaged in seditious acts of reasoned debate and seeking common ground with ideological opponents, the movement continues to grow. The media has been warned not to provide the groups with undue publicity, but evidence shows the media has done everything in their power to ignore them. “We don’t cover these groups at all,” said CEO of NBC Brian Hammond who has been disturbed by the audacity of these groups to build large audiences without the approval of mainstream media sources.

“This movement could destroy everything we have worked for,” said white nationalist Barry McGraw in a panel discussion with far-left journalists, KKK, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, MAGA hat guys, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and other groups built on the principles of division and dehumanization. “If we don’t get to work, we could wake up tomorrow and people who want to work together despite their differences could suddenly be running things. We have to stand up and protect unhinged outrage. This cancer of courtesy can only be neutralized by every one of us spreading the essential human values of discord, rage, and a refusal to engage with anyone who does not agree with us 1,000%.”



Sent from my iPad

The Spanish poet Ramón de Campoamor, in his poem Las Dos Linternas says: "In this traitorous world, nothing is true or false, everything is according to the color of the glass with which one looks". This said in Spanish rhymes and sounds very good, but it also holds a great truth. Currently there is a double standard that is scandalous, which is detrimental to the truth.
For the victim of an aggression the truth is different than for the victimizer. Anyone who suffers a violent physical aggression has the right to defend himself.
When the aggrieved person is also disadvantaged for any reason (age, physical constitution, illness) resorting to a weapon to defend himself is correct. The second amendment of the Constitution of this country authorizes the possession of weapons.
It is regrettable the violent death of any person, regardless of skin color, religion or political position, but when a person violently attacks another without a valid reason and does so by surprise, with treachery, advantage and/or premeditation; that person must adhere to the consequences that may arise from his attack, because the attacked (apparently defenseless) may be armed. This was what happened a few days ago in Pinellas County in the state of Florida, where the sheriff applied the stand your ground law in a clear case of self-defense.
There is a video taken by the security camera of the store and from this video, it is deduced that a man (the attacked) was arguing with a woman (the attacker's girlfriend), without physical violence. This woman was committing an infraction when she was using the parking lot for disabled people without having the right or reason to do so, since you can see the arrival of other cars parking in front of the store, so the parking lot was unoccupied when she arrived. There was no reason to have parked the car in that place.
A man (the attacker) came out of the store and taking the attacked by surprise pushes him violently, knocking him to the ground, in the way that a stevedore would throw a sack of sawdust. On the ground the attacked reacts, raises his head and torso, takes out a weapon and shoots the attacker, hurting him mortally. It is noteworthy that behind the attacker, following him very close, comes another individual from the store, who departs when he sees the weapon. Physically, the attacker looks much stronger than the attacked one and is twenty years younger. A fall by a stumble can produce a state of confusion and by an unexpected attack the confusion can turn into fear, more if another individual is seen coming behind the attacker. The reaction is justified, but it remains to determine if it was possible to have fired a shot that disabled the aggressor without killing him or having stopped him only by threatening him with the weapon. A security professional can master his reaction in a case like this, but not a common citizen.
That the attacker was in the store with his five-year-old son or that the attacker's girlfriend was in the car with two of his children is not important to the facts. At no time are the children seen in the video and the color of the skin of the participants in the event is not important, because all people are equal before the law. It can not be hear what the attacker said to the attacked person during the attack. As I have known, the attacker was imprisoned on a drug issue and had another problem due to a violent attack that was discarded.
I think it's well established that the attacker was the one who was killed. It is not a way to face a problem by acting with violence and this individual at no time tried to establish a communication with the attacked. If the attacked person, without having the authority to do so, but without exercising any violence, was calling the attention of the attacker's girlfriend for improperly using the place for the disabled, there is no justification for the violent attack, since there was no physical attack on her or her children, so the action was not in defense of the family as it is now said. It is true that the attacked possibly has a police complex and therefore carries a weapon and requires people for any illegality as I have been able to read, but the logical attitude towards this individual is not to argue with him, because although he does not have authority is right about the violation of the law. I estimate that if the one who died had known that the attacked person was armed he would not have attacked him. The behavior of the deceased is that of an abuser who makes an aggression with advantage and by surprise to another person. It is unfortunate that he was the father of three children, but this should not be taken as justification for his behavior.
On the other hand, there is talk about family and children, but it is said that the mother of the children is the attacker's girlfriend; that is, she is a single mother. It is noteworthy that they have three children. Are these children recognized by their father? Does this individual work to support his children? She works as a nurse, but: Does she receive help as a single mother?.
If she is a single mother, this individual is not legally a parent.
I do not believe that a civil proceeding can force the attacked to pay damages to the attacker's children for an illegal action of his father in which he was killed.
There may be many opinions based on different considerations, but the arrogance of the deceased brought him to his end.
I have read that the girlfriend's lawyer, who is an African-American, says the law is unfavorable to African-Americans, but the law does not establish anything that discriminates against them. The law is equal for everyone. Of course, it can be understood from what this lawyer says, that the law goes against certain behavior that is common to African-Americans.
Sample of the above is what happened in California, which was the subject of comment in OPP in recent days.
An African-American woman with a sturdy physique, hit twice on the head with a piece of concrete block a 91-year-old man and shouted to him: "Go back to Mexico where you came from." The elder fell to the ground unconscious and then other African-Americans continued to beat him. This case did not shock anyone, there was no protest and was only mentioned by the media, saying that it was not a hate attack. It seems that a violent attack because of Xenophobia is no longer a hate crime.
If the stand your ground law were to work in California and this old man had had a weapon to defend himself, he would have received fewer blows, but later he would have to face the protests and surely this old man would be guilty of anything else. It seems that now African-Americans are better than Mexican Indians. What would Martin Luther King say?
The sheriff of Pinellas County acted according to the provisions of the law and it can not be said that the stand your ground law is unjust. Now a group of persons protest saying the attacker's life matters. If the results had been otherwise and whoever was killed were the one attacked, for hitting his head on the pavement, surely there would be no protest because this life does not matters.

Except that Arnold betrayed his county and here it's Trump who did the betraying--though Trump did duck out on the military every chance he was given. And how is it you great supporters of all things military could support someone who clearly was ducking his military obligation when men like you and your brothers were being drafted and dying in his place?

On the one hand those of you who are devout Christians had to give up your beliefs in order to vote for Trump and here you men of the military had to hold your nose for the man you were voting for? It's like nothing you people believed in mattered any more when it came to Trump. It's a good thing that all the fallacies spun about Hillary worked otherwise it might have come down to an actual choice. Now that would have been sad wouldn't it...someone like you actually having a choice to vote for Hillary Clinton? Yikes indeed...