• 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

Trump's true intentions with the EO is to throw meat to his base. He promised a Muslim ban and this is the best he can do and it has proven to sufficient. It is not meant to make us safer as it does not address the countries that have actually exported terrorists to our shores. So all this is irrelevant. Let him call this what he wants. It will have some effect on H!B visas and med/grad schools and hospital residency programs but that will all come into focus soon enough.
The big deal is when the next terrorist event happens. Better than 90% it will be a citizen. Maybe born here. At the least, not from one of the six countries in the ban. And then what will he say. He will have failed. Who will he blame it on when he got his ban that was supposed to keep us safe.
Give him his ban. He can be buried in it.
 
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...
They didnt make a ruling based on law. They decided what the laws intent was and shot it down based on that.

Would you be defending a conserative judge who threw out obsmacare not because of how it was written but because he believed obama was trying to move us into socialism?

Is there any limitation the judicial branch has other than a higher courts opinion?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
They didnt make a ruling based on law. They decided what the laws intent was and shot it down based on that.

Would you be defending a conserative judge who threw out obsmacare not because of how it was written but because he believed obama was trying to move us into socialism?

Is there any limitation the judicial branch has other than a higher courts opinion?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, that is not what happened. The EO is not "shot down", it is on hold, until a court actually hears the case.

Socialism would not work as there is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot move towards socialism.

Yes, constitutional amendments to change the constitution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What realistic chance do you think exists for a 2/3 (67 members?) Senate vote to remove a (liberal or conservative) judge?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but it's time for them to wake up and send these dudes packing.
 
Redress said:
No, that is not what happened. The EO is not "shot down", it is on hold, until a court actually hears the case.

Socialism would not work as there is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot move towards socialism.

Yes, constitutional amendments to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

The restraining order is unconstitutional.
 
Cardinal said:
That the executive order is a Muslim Ban.
Click to expand...
If rhats the case what is the reason for excluding other perdominately muslim countries?

Another question i have about this, assuming this is a musslum ban, what law does that violate?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
No, that is not what happened. The EO is not "shot down", it is on hold, until a court actually hears the case.

Socialism would not work as there is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot move towards socialism.

Yes, constitutional amendments to change the constitution.
Click to expand...
Theres also not anything in the constitution that forces us to open our doors or restrict who we allow or not allow to enter.

Lets say trump says we have enough christains already and we are not taking any new ones. He hasnt violated anyones constitutional rights.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Theres also not anything in the constitution that forces us to open our doors or restrict who we allow or not allow to enter.

Lets say trump says we have enough christains already and we are not taking any new ones. He hasnt violated anyones constitutional rights.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, he has.

Cardinal's link explains several reasons why.
 
Cardinal said:
This article addresses the violations from the first Muslim ban.

Here are all the parts of the Constitution Trump’s Muslim ban violates.
Click to expand...

From your source:

Yet that power is also committed to Congress, which passed no law authorizing this order.

The law Congress passed giving the Executive branch the authority.

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
Click to expand...

(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.
Click to expand...

Your source is mistaken.
 
Mr Person said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm sure overly pretentious lawyers would do a very good job protecting their racket. If not, what would justify their ridiculous amount of schooling and over-priced service?
 
apdst said:
From your source:

Yet that power is also committed to Congress, which passed no law authorizing this order.

The law Congress passed giving the Executive branch the authority.





Your source is mistaken.
Click to expand...

You believe that the judiciary doesn't have the power to conduct judicial review, so your opinion on what is "mistaken" is not regarded very highly.
 
Cardinal said:
You believe that the judiciary doesn't have the power to conduct judicial review, so your opinion on what is "mistaken" is not regarded very highly.
Click to expand...

Judicial review of written law; not personal opinions, nor The Constitution.

Before you state what I believe, first find out what I believe.
 
apdst said:
Judicial review of written law; not personal opinions, nor The Constitution.

Before you state what I believe, first find out what I believe.
Click to expand...

If you believe that judicial review doesn't apply to executive orders, then your opinions don't matter.
 
trouble13 said:
That article assumes visitors are protected constitutionaly from our gov but nowhere in rhe constitution does it bestow that to our visitors. We extend those things to them as a courtosey. They are not legally entitled

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't get to apply an establishment of religion to immigrants as a backdoor for religious preference.
 
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...

I believe the correct word is poopyface but otherwise I agree with your words..
 
apdst said:
The restraining order is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Is not, is not!

See, any one can make statements with nothing to back them up. I have posted, in this very thread, the reasoning used and the standard for a temporary restraining order. You have presented, well, nothing, except to prove that you have never read the rulings.
 
trouble13 said:
Theres also not anything in the constitution that forces us to open our doors or restrict who we allow or not allow to enter.

Lets say trump says we have enough christains already and we are not taking any new ones. He hasnt violated anyones constitutional rights.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what this discussion is about? No one is saying we have to "open our doors", nor that we cannot restrict who is or is not "allowed to enter". However, all laws, and EOs must follow the constitution, and there is a real possibility that Trump's EO will be found to violate the establishment clause. AS such a real possibility exists, then putting a hold on the EO is the proper course of action until the courts decide.
 
Redress said:
Is not, is not!

See, any one can make statements with nothing to back them up. I have posted, in this very thread, the reasoning used and the standard for a temporary restraining order. You have presented, well, nothing, except to prove that you have never read the rulings.
Click to expand...

I've post plenty to support my position in this thread. Yourself on the other haven't posted a single referrence; only vitriol and smartassery.
 
apdst said:
Judicial review of written law; not personal opinions, nor The Constitution.

Before you state what I believe, first find out what I believe.
Click to expand...

So EOs and EAs are not subject to judicial review? You sure you want to go with that silly argument?
 
Redress said:
Do you have any idea what this discussion is about? No one is saying we have to "open our doors", nor that we cannot restrict who is or is not "allowed to enter". However, all laws, and EOs must follow the constitution, and there is a real possibility that Trump's EO will be found to violate the establishment clause. AS such a real possibility exists, then putting a hold on the EO is the proper course of action until the courts decide.
Click to expand...

President Trump's EO can't violate the 1st Amendment, since no one has had their religious freedom removed, nor do any of the EO's establish religion.
 
trouble13 said:
That article assumes visitors are protected constitutionaly from our gov but nowhere in rhe constitution does it bestow that to our visitors. We extend those things to them as a courtosey. They are not legally entitled

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think you should probably read the establishment clause since you clearly are not aware of what it says. Let me help:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

What does "no law" mean to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom