• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawmakers warn judges ruling on travel bans against exceeding power

Cardinal said:
I doubt it's that simple. If I'm President and run on the platform that I'm going to close all Christian churches, then make an executive order that ends up closing places of worship with an image of a cross on it, you can expect a judge to call me on my crap pretty quickly regardless of whether or not the word "Christian" is written into the EO.

It's not hard to see the problem if you just replace the target of the executive order with a demographic you belong to.
Click to expand...

A judges job is to read the law and determine if what is written is constitutional, not find a statement made by the president that he disagrees with and shoot down everything that comes his way.
 
Redress said:
The judges have not ruled on "personal feelings". I strongly suggest you read the rulings. Feelings are not the basis for them.
Click to expand...

Of course they have. They ruled that someone's feeling may be hurt by the EO.
 
Redress said:
So you want judges to not rule based on law, but to rule based on fear of being fired if they do not rule the politically acceptable to the majority in congress way? Do you really think that is a good idea?
Click to expand...

Yes...we want to them to rule based on the law. That's not what's happening. They are judges, not monarchs that make up their own laws.
 
MaggieD said:
Either the president is within his constitutional rights to do what he did? Or he is not. It is absolutely NOT the judges' responsibility, nor in their wheelhouse to decide if the EO is necessary or what the motives are that are behind it.

Glad to read the OP. About time.
Click to expand...

Which of these statements do you disagree with?

1: the people who have brought suit have standing to do so.

2: The people who brought suit will be harmed by the EO.

3: There is a reasonable chance they will prevail in court on the issue.
 
apdst said:
It specifically says laws. There's nothing about campaign rhetoric.
Click to expand...

So it does not say that. Gotcha, you where trying to add limits to the constitution that was not there.
 
Redress said:
The judges have not ruled on "personal feelings". I strongly suggest you read the rulings. Feelings are not the basis for them.
Click to expand...

They kinda really are. The judges, using campaign rhetoric from Trump, feel that even though there is no mention specifically of banning Muslims they feel this temporary travel ban is a thinly veiled attempt at a religious based ban.


Debating if using emotional feelings to determine law is another thread
 
MaggieD said:
Either the president is within his constitutional rights to do what he did? Or he is not.
Click to expand...

Well...yeah. The EO has been blocked to be reviewed for just that reason -- to see if the President is acting within the Constitution.

MaggieD said:
It is absolutely NOT the judges' responsibility, nor in their wheelhouse to decide if the EO is necessary or what the motives are that are behind it.

Glad to read the OP. About time.
Click to expand...

And you say that because...?
 
Redress said:
So it does not say that. Gotcha, you where trying to add limits to the constitution that was not there.
Click to expand...

The courts can't change The Constitution. IOW, The Constitution doesn't allow anything outside of The Constitution and law, therefore the courts can't use campaign rhetoric. If the court can use campaign rhetoric, it could also use race and sex. "Based on President Obama's race, we decide this way". See where your argument breaks down?
 
Cardinal said:
As I understand it, the courts are dealing with a fairly new situation where the motivation for the executive order is on public record even if that motive isn't written directly into the EO itself. If Trump makes an executive order than only targets Muslim countries, and goes onto the public record quite clearly that this is a ban on Muslims, why shouldn't the judges take the totality of that information into account? I don't know if there's a precedent for this because, before Trump, most politicians haven't been so stupid as he has in telegraphing his true intentions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Trump sort of shot himself in the foot with his big mouth. He announced to the world what his intent was. The dumbass still hasn't even removed the statement from his own website.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Yeah, Trump sort of shot himself in the foot with his big mouth. He announced to the world what his intent was. The dumbass still hasn't even removed the statement from his own website.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Click to expand...

Jesus! LOL.

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Intent plays a part in virtually every court case ever.
Click to expand...

Words can't be added to the law in question. The EO says nothing about banning any religion, therefore, it isn't a religious ban. The judges can't just insert words at will to make it mean what they want it to mean.
 
apdst said:
It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.
Click to expand...

Well, the recent rulings against Trump have been from the most Liberal courts in the nation.

Of course they'd rule against him.

Who the hell cares?

Gorsuch is coming to save the day.

:usflag2:
 
apdst said:
Show us how they follow the law.
Click to expand...

Would those who sued have standing? Yes

Would those who sued be damaged by the EO? Yes

Would those who sued stand a reasonable chance to prevail in court? Yes.

See how easy that is?
 
apdst said:
Of course they have. They ruled that someone's feeling may be hurt by the EO.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what they ruled. Again, it would help you if you read the ruling so you know what you are talking about.
 
apdst said:
The courts can't change The Constitution. IOW, The Constitution doesn't allow anything outside of The Constitution and law, therefore the courts can't use campaign rhetoric. If the court can use campaign rhetoric, it could also use race and sex. "Based on President Obama's race, we decide this way". See where your argument breaks down?
Click to expand...

The court did not change the constitution. Things outside the constitution and law are used every day in making rulings. By every judge. Do you know anything at all about the US legal system?
 
Cardinal said:
As I understand it, the courts are dealing with a fairly new situation where the motivation for the executive order is on public record even if that motive isn't written directly into the EO itself. If Trump makes an executive order than only targets Muslim countries, and goes onto the public record quite clearly that this is a ban on Muslims, why shouldn't the judges take the totality of that information into account? I don't know if there's a precedent for this because, before Trump, most politicians haven't been so stupid as he has in telegraphing his true intentions.
Click to expand...

:bs

Please show me where the bolded is within their Constitutional power to interpret the law. G'head, I'll wait.

While you're at it, show me where they did this to Obama after he repeatedly said, in speech after speech, it was beyond his Constitutional power to grant "dreamers" amnesty, and then went ahead issued an EO doing just that. G'head, I'll wait for that too.
 
Mr Person said:
I might just read one of these threads if I had the slightest suspicion that the person starting it actually practiced as an attorney for a while and at least had to take a class on constitutional law.




The only reason we see people without the slightest bit of legal training/understanding/knowledge/etc complaining is because court decisions can affect them. That might be understandable on a basic instinctive level, but it isn't rational; hence the same people that start these threads do not try to start threads on their personal opinion that a popular neurosurgery technique is no good, on how Quine's "Ontological Relativity" got the essence of meaning all wrong, or on how Hawking was wrong to change his mind about complete information loss regarding matter and energy that passes an event horizon.

In those contexts, they realize they don't know the slightest fraction of a **** about the subject, so they don't run their mouths. But a decision that conflicts with their political beliefs? Well, clearly, lawyers and judges are just stoopid poopooface elitists who need to be replaced with plumbers and lumberjacks.
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
You don't need a law degree to understand the Constitution, just on how to distort it.
Click to expand...



Said the non-lawyer to the lawyer.

Yeah, the basic premises of the constitution were supposed to be understandable to the layman. Actual judicial review for constitutionality was intended, but not necessarily expected to be understandable by a layman. And despite what you might anonymously say on the internet, you know perfectly well that people who have no legal training and criticize a decision (usually not having even bothered to read it, let alone combed through the record on appeal, let alone even ****ing knowing what "the record on appeal" even IS ) are doing it solely because they don't like the result.

It's fairly obvious when a poster who has had some kind of training is speaking, as it is when someone who has not speaks.




I would pay good money to see your type try to represent yourself in court, then argue the appeal. Good money. You'd find out what happens when you aren't an anonymous internet commentator but someone who actually has to convince other once-lawyers to accept the interpretation of the rules or laws necessary to make them win.....not that they'd grant oral argument, but hey, you'd probably just tell yourself that the judge was a poopy lib.

I think this would actually be an interesting thing to study: how many of the laypersons who act like they know more about the law than long-time appellate judges have actually bet their own *** on their supposed skill in constitutional interpretation?
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
:bs

Please show me where the bolded is within their Constitutional power to interpret the law. G'head, I'll wait.

While you're at it, show me where they did this to Obama after he repeatedly said, in speech after speech, it was beyond his Constitutional power to grant "dreamers" amnesty, and then went ahead issued an EO doing just that. G'head, I'll wait for that too.
Click to expand...

You are dismissed to the corner. You are no longer allowed to discuss matters related to civics.
 
apdst said:
Show us how they follow the law.
Click to expand...

Show us how they don't.

Case citations and discussions, deep legislative history, etc etc etc. It'll probably take 50-100 pages to do this for just one case, so you may want to create a website to put it on, then share a link here.
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
:bs

Please show me where the bolded is within their Constitutional power to interpret the law.
Click to expand...

Well, first, you show him the clause that says that nothing explicitly described in detail in the constitution is covered by the constitution.

Then, prove that all the founders that agreed (that's all but TWO) that common law judicial review should apply to Article 3 courts were lying.

Then explain why the founders thought that this ultra-rigid approach wouldn't fall apart the second a new question had to be answered by a court, like whether or not scanning the outside of houses for heat constitutes a "search".

/snort.
 
Redress said:
No, that is not what they ruled. Again, it would help you if you read the ruling so you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to know that, it might interfere with his opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom