Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Muslim Ban: The Shitshow has begun

Trump's Muslim Ban: The Shitshow has begun (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, does the 'judge' think these foreign refugees are all so wonderful and safe?
He doesn't have ANY responsibility if said refugees were actually terrorists.
'judge'???

You are claiming that somehow this judge is not a judge?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 11:15 AM
 
He talks like Trump.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 11:19 AM
 
Trump is leading him around by the nose!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, does the 'judge' think these foreign refugees are all so wonderful and safe?
He doesn't have ANY responsibility if said refugees were actually terrorists.
The judge's job is to determine if the executive order is lawful. It is not his job to guess who may or may not be terrorists.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have that supports your assertion that this man is not qualified to be a judge?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:03 PM
 
History. Obama had a temporary travel ban too. So did Clinton.
Go look up the word obstructionist.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:26 PM
 
The judge went to college w/ Obama, was appointed by Obama, and recently (in the last few days) was visited by Obama... yeah, that's not suspicious at all. Hopefully the USSC will sort all this out shortly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:29 PM
 
We've been over that before, what the differences were. Over and over.

Go look up reading comprehension.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:32 PM
 
Are you okay? That's not like you, andi.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:42 PM
 
Because we should all have endless patience with people whose every last opinion is lifted verbatim from their favourite fake news sources?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
History. Obama had a temporary travel ban too. So did Clinton.
The 2015 bill did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries. It only prevented people without visas from visiting the country, which is normally permitted for up to 90 days. I've mentioned that already.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Because we should all have endless patience with people whose every last opinion is lifted verbatim from their favourite fake news sources?
That sounds exactly like ideologues from both sides of the aisle, and I doubt you even realize it.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Mar 17, 2017 at 12:21 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
^^ That sounds exactly like ideologues from both sides of the aisle, and I doubt you even realize it.
I simply quoted a summary of the law in question. The Visa Waiver Program allows persons from specific countries to visit the United States without a visa for a period of up to 90 days. H.R. 158 (Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015) creates a list of countries that are no longer eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, with the exception of nationals who serve in the U.S. Military or are employees of the U.S. Federal Government.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
^^ That sounds exactly like ideologues from both sides of the aisle, and I doubt you even realize it.
Who are those carots pointed at? The guy claiming that Trump's actions are the same as Obama's? Because not even a run-of-the-mill idealogue is dumb enough to believe that.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Who are those carots pointed at? The guy claiming that Trump's actions are the same as Obama's? Because not even a run-of-the-mill idealogue is dumb enough to believe that.
From what frame of reference? Emotionally? Morally? Or legally.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 04:45 PM
 
The reason I ask is, I think you're spot on ethically, emotionally and morally. I am against the ban as a matter of foreign and domestic policy, for a multitude of reasons.

BUT

Legally.....

8 USC 1182 (f) states
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I don't understand how any federal judge can wholesale ignore the written law pertaining to the subject when writing an opinion. It's mind boggling, and indicates the judges are not adjudicating the law as written but instead picking and choosing which laws to cite to fit their predetermined outcome. This is extremely troubling to me for a number of reasons.

Again, I'm against the ban....but I'm even more against the failure of the judicial system's mandate to adjudicate the laws congress writes. It'd be one thing if they found that law to be unconstitutional, or superseded by the constitution. It's another entirely for them to repeal laws from the bench by ignoring them without the congressional approval. Judges should not be playing politics, nor should they put impose their own opinions in place of bona fide federal law.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 05:12 PM
 
^^^

The reason is because there is more than one "written law pertaining to the subject". There is "anti-discrimination" law on the books in addition to the "Suspension of Entry" law you cited. Very often legislation can be in conflict with each other to one degree or another. And it is up to the judiciary to sort all that out. Opinions can vary ... hence those judges that write "dissents". And ultimately it may be up to the SCOTUS to settle it one way or another.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

The reason is because there is more than one "written law pertaining to the subject". There is "anti-discrimination" law on the books in addition to the "Suspension of Entry" law you cited. Very often legislation can be in conflict with each other to one degree or another. And it is up to the judiciary to sort all that out. Opinions can vary ... hence those judges that write "dissents". And ultimately it may be up to the SCOTUS to settle it one way or another.

OAW
I understand that OAW, but the point of the opinion is to discuss that conflict. Wholesale ignoring the law is not the same as adjudicating that law against other laws on the books. Considering this law is central to the case, and the "anti-discrimination laws" are periphery (and don't even necessarily apply to non-citizens/non-residents/people currently outside the US), ignoring 8 USC 1182 cannot be described as "sorting all that out".

For the judiciary, the ends never ever ever justify the means. The means can only be "laws on the books". If said laws aren't even weighed, they just aren't doing their jobs and not only are destroying separation of powers, they are usurping the powers reserved for the legislature.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The reason I ask is, I think you're spot on ethically, emotionally and morally. I am against the ban as a matter of foreign and domestic policy, for a multitude of reasons.

BUT

Legally.....

8 USC 1182 (f) states


I don't understand how any federal judge can wholesale ignore the written law pertaining to the subject when writing an opinion. It's mind boggling, and indicates the judges are not adjudicating the law as written but instead picking and choosing which laws to cite to fit their predetermined outcome. This is extremely troubling to me for a number of reasons.

Again, I'm against the ban....but I'm even more against the failure of the judicial system's mandate to adjudicate the laws congress writes. It'd be one thing if they found that law to be unconstitutional, or superseded by the constitution. It's another entirely for them to repeal laws from the bench by ignoring them without the congressional approval. Judges should not be playing politics, nor should they put impose their own opinions in place of bona fide federal law.
The judges didn't repeal the law. It's just a hold until it can be tried. What's the problem here?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The judges didn't repeal the law. It's just a hold until it can be tried. What's the problem here?
They didn't even consider it in their ruling the 1st time, or when putting the hold on the 2nd one. Effectively pretending it was either never written, was struck down or was repealed. The problem is you have federal judges that aren't objectively adjudicating the law, but instead picking and choosing pieces of it because politics.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Again, I'm against the ban....but I'm even more against the failure of the judicial system's mandate to adjudicate the laws congress writes. It'd be one thing if they found that law to be unconstitutional, or superseded by the constitution. It's another entirely for them to repeal laws from the bench by ignoring them without the congressional approval. Judges should not be playing politics, nor should they put impose their own opinions in place of bona fide federal law.
The judges aren't imposing personal opinion in place of Federal law, they exercise judicial opinion in interpreting the law, and explain the conclusion based on (and listing thereof) the relevant facts. That is quite different from a "personal opinion." Furthermore, the judges found the executive orders to be unconstitutional, which I believe falls under one of your criteria for acceptance of a ruling. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote in his ruling that, "... despite changes made by the White House to the new ban, it clearly violated constitutional protections of religion based on comments made by Trump during his presidential campaign."

To further complicate the issue, President Trump's administration made contradictory claims as to the effectiveness of the vetting process between the first travel ban and the revision. Because of that, they could not demonstrate that the executive order was an emergency and a direct result of national security based on those claims.

It'll go to the Supreme Court who will likely kick the ruling back to the district courts, and the stay will remain.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 06:21 PM
 
Also, in regards to the first suspension, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the District Court's actions and ruling, stating, "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

I suspect that these rulings are going to change how Executive Orders will be handled in the near future. Eventually, they'll likely have to go through a Judicial or Congressional Review process before being enacted. Because of the first ruling, it's doubtful the stay on the second ban will be lifted.

So for people complaining about Bush & Obama's expansion of the executive powers, we now have the logical conclusion.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Also, in regards to the first suspension, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the District Court's actions and ruling, stating, "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."
Citation? I see 9th Circuit court, not SCOTUS
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Citation? I see 9th Circuit court, not SCOTUS
Oops, sorry. You're correct. I thought I read SCOTUS.

Also, upon further Googling, Executive Orders (like all other laws) are subject to Judicial review. So this particular executive order is not an exception in that regard. The judges are doing their job as intended. Indeed, many, many executive orders have been overturned in court.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 08:57 PM
 
EOs aren't laws.

/pedant
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
They didn't even consider it in their ruling the 1st time, or when putting the hold on the 2nd one. Effectively pretending it was either never written, was struck down or was repealed. The problem is you have federal judges that aren't objectively adjudicating the law, but instead picking and choosing pieces of it because politics.
First of all, I don't think it is wise to decisions by the judicial branch through the same lens as political decisions. Conservatives were upset that Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to abolish the ACA, ignoring that it is not his job to weigh the matter politically (Scalia's famed “stupid, but constitutional” stamp comes to mind). Roberts didn't “move to the left politically”, it is just that judicial conservatism does not coincide with legal conservatism. In fact, most decisions of the Supreme Court are not made along any obvious party lines. Rather than freaking out or yelling “activist liberal judges” here, it is better to take a calmer, more measured approach.

Moreover, this isn't a final ruling, it is a temporary restraining order which stops the executive order from coming into effect. So the outcome may change, but the temporary restraining order could only be put in place because the court sees that the plaintiff has a stronger case. It is also useful to keep in mind that if the temporary restraining order is appealed, the burden of proof is reversed: it is now up to the Trump administration to show that they would be victorious in court. This could be important if the Administration decides to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court: in case of a tie, the previous decision is upheld. (Even if Gorsich is appointed in the meantime, it is widely expected that he will recuse himself.)

For the first executive order, the botched formulation and execution were much stronger legal arguments, and what is being discussed now is the real legal battle. Now it comes down to whether in spirit the executive order is compatible with existing laws. For instance, the President is granted wide latitude when it comes to immigration in Hart-Celler Act of 1965. However, the same law also prohibits discrimination based on country of birth and religion. As far as I understand, this part of the bill hasn't been tested yet in the context of executive orders, but at least it seems completely ok to investigate this question legally. The fact that there is no precedent, doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.

The weakest part of the argument in my understanding is the question of standing. In the case on the previous executive order, I could immediately see how state universities were immediately impacted by this (I'm a researcher myself). For the case now, this is even trickier, and higher courts could dismiss the case just on that basis alone even if the subsequent arguments are found to have merit. During the last court case, the legal arguments of the Trump administration seemed to come from politicians rather than lawyers, and if they have learnt from that experience, they'll let the lawyers do their job without political interference.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
EOs aren't laws.

/pedant
Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself.

/pedant/
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Who are those carots pointed at? The guy claiming that Trump's actions are the same as Obama's? Because not even a run-of-the-mill idealogue is dumb enough to believe that.
It wasn't, so you can stop freaking out.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
First of all, I don't think it is wise to decisions by the judicial branch through the same lens as political decisions. Conservatives were upset that Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to abolish the ACA, ignoring that it is not his job to weigh the matter politically (Scalia's famed “stupid, but constitutional” stamp comes to mind). Roberts didn't “move to the left politically”, it is just that judicial conservatism does not coincide with legal conservatism. In fact, most decisions of the Supreme Court are not made along any obvious party lines. Rather than freaking out or yelling “activist liberal judges” here, it is better to take a calmer, more measured approach.
That is my intent by focusing on the laws as written. Politically, as I've said, I think the ban was a terrible idea. Legally, however, I can't find a rational explanation.

Moreover, this isn't a final ruling, it is a temporary restraining order which stops the executive order from coming into effect. So the outcome may change, but the temporary restraining order could only be put in place because the court sees that the plaintiff has a stronger case. It is also useful to keep in mind that if the temporary restraining order is appealed, the burden of proof is reversed: it is now up to the Trump administration to show that they would be victorious in court. This could be important if the Administration decides to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court: in case of a tie, the previous decision is upheld. (Even if Gorsich is appointed in the meantime, it is widely expected that he will recuse himself.)
But what basis for the injuction could you possibly have if you were to consider 8 USC 1182? The law, as written, is plain as day.

For the first executive order, the botched formulation and execution were much stronger legal arguments, and what is being discussed now is the real legal battle. Now it comes down to whether in spirit the executive order is compatible with existing laws. For instance, the President is granted wide latitude when it comes to immigration in Hart-Celler Act of 1965. However, the same law also prohibits discrimination based on country of birth and religion. As far as I understand, this part of the bill hasn't been tested yet in the context of executive orders, but at least it seems completely ok to investigate this question legally. The fact that there is no precedent, doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
I agree, I just don't see how this gets you around 8 USC 1182.

The weakest part of the argument in my understanding is the question of standing. In the case on the previous executive order, I could immediately see how state universities were immediately impacted by this (I'm a researcher myself). For the case now, this is even trickier, and higher courts could dismiss the case just on that basis alone even if the subsequent arguments are found to have merit. During the last court case, the legal arguments of the Trump administration seemed to come from politicians rather than lawyers, and if they have learnt from that experience, they'll let the lawyers do their job without political interference.
How would Trump's administration lack standing when 8 USC 1182 specifically names the president as having this authority? The impacts are not for the judiciary to decide - that's congress's job - only the interpretation of the law & applicable case law as written.

Perhaps it is my ignorance here, afterall IANAL, but I just don't see how the judiciary can wholesale ignore a law that grants specific powers to the president when granting injunctions against the president's use of that specific authority.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 03:36 PM
 
where's Simey the Limey when you need him. Is there a lawyer in the house?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 05:04 PM
 
I can get a GS judge on here (graduated top of his class from Pepperdine Law), but I don't think most here would like him very much.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
where's Simey the Limey when you need him. Is there a lawyer in the house?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
That is my intent by focusing on the laws as written. Politically, as I've said, I think the ban was a terrible idea. Legally, however, I can't find a rational explanation.
First of all, we should all scale back our outrage: this is one judge on one court making a preliminary decision. I think this decision is much weaker than the previous ones, though, and could have ramifications on other, unrelated areas of law. I'm quite certain that this will land in the Supreme Court. And even if we come to the conclusion that this judge went too far, and his decision is eventually overturned, I don't get all the outrage and angst you can read about on nationalreview and similar sites.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But what basis for the injuction could you possibly have if you were to consider 8 USC 1182? The law, as written, is plain as day.
That's because you cherry picked the laws you want to apply here, and you can't do that. Another part of the law says that people cannot be blocked on the basis of their nationality or religion, and the President cannot enact executive orders that are in violation of law.
Originally Posted by 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, aka the Hart-Celler Act
(1a) No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated agains in the issuance of an immigrant beause of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth , or place of residence, except specifically provided in section 101(a)(27), section 201(b), and section 203: [...]
The subtlety here is how to balance these two provisions, and that is a question that courts are meant to decide if they are challenged. The weakness of the executive order is that it is not designed to implement what the state department and intelligence community say about what is best for safety (e. g. that citizenship is not a good predictor for whether or not you intend to commit a terrorist act). And of course, there is also the Establishment Clause in the constitution which, if it applies, supersedes the laws that either one of us have quoted.

The problem with this kind of immigration law is standing, though: if you are not a citizen and are not subject to US laws (such as visa and green card holders are), then you don't have standing. In my view the question of standing will decide this case: does the damage to state universities (both, staff and students) give a state standing in court or not. On the other hand, if it is essentially impossible to get standing in immigration questions, there is no judicial oversight in these matters. I don't think any one area of law should be exempt from oversight.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How would Trump's administration lack standing when 8 USC 1182 specifically names the president as having this authority?
You misunderstood that part of my post, I was talking about standing of the state of Hawaii and the individual who sued the Trump administration rather than standing of the Trump administration. If I were in the administration's legal team, this is one thing I'd focus on, because that could pull the rug from underneath Hawaii's feet. If they do a repeat of the previous two court cases relating to the previous executive order, though, they will have trouble convincing the court.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The impacts are not for the judiciary to decide - that's congress's job - only the interpretation of the law & applicable case law as written.
No, it is the judiciary's role to also check the executive branch, if you have standing you can sue the executive branch for either not following the law as they are written or implementing laws in such a way that they violate other laws (e. g. constitutional protections). That was one (legally extremely weak) argument the Trump administration had made in the first two case: the federal courts are not meant to review executive orders. The federal courts have soundly rejected this argument, because of their constitutional duty to also oversee the executive branch.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 12:48 AM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 12:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
where's Simey the Limey when you need him. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Yeah, it's a pity he has left the community, while I disagreed with him a lot, he won his fair share of arguments and widened my perspective.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can get a GS judge on here (graduated top of his class from Pepperdine Law), but I don't think most here would like him very much.
I'd be keen to know his opinions. Please do, if he's willing.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2017, 06:59 PM
 
Title is misleading. I was not impressed by the article.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 05:58 AM
 
Yes the title is misleading. It had some arguments in it that weren't being mentioned here though, thats the only reason I posted it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can get a GS judge on here (graduated top of his class from Pepperdine Law), but I don't think most here would like him very much.
I can get the Pope on here, but I don't think most here would like him very much.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes the title is misleading. It had some arguments in it that weren't being mentioned here though, thats the only reason I posted it.
Try quoting them next time
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I can get the Pope on here, but I don't think most here would like him very much.
I liked Francis just fine, he's a very compassionate, kind soul. Isn't it time you stop acting like a 5 y/o? Yes, I know a judge (he's in my AD&D group), big ****ing deal.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2