• 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

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.

This week’s rulings against President Trump’s revised executive order on travel and refugees have sparked heated pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who say judges have crossed the line to become adversaries of this White House — and suggested retribution could be coming.

Even some judges seemed worried about the tenor of recent rulings, saying their colleagues appeared to be letting personal beliefs taint their legal reasoning.

Lawmakers warn judges ruling on travel bans against exceeding power - Washington Times
 
THis crap has been going on for years with lower courts purposely trying overturn previous SCOTUS rulings.
with judges making crap up that doesn't exist or isn't in law or changing the law into something else.

they are just now figuring this out?
 
It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.

I have to agree to a point with the tenor of the article. I've read the recent rulings, and they are based on assumptions of what the "secret" meaning of the Executive Orders are according to the court so they could use that "secret" meaning to find the EO un-Constitutional based on the Establishment Clause, rather than what the law says and what the EO says and more importantly what the EO does and doesn't do.

If a judge has, or assumes the power, to interpret for judgment what they "think" or "believe" is in the heart of a person rather than the what the actions of the person actually are, then the court is making thoughts illegal, rather than actions.

The "Thought Court" is now in session.
 
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.
 
THis crap has been going on for years with lower courts purposely trying overturn previous SCOTUS rulings.
with judges making crap up that doesn't exist or isn't in law or changing the law into something else.

they are just now figuring this out?

If I remember correctly the SC did that with the ACA. When it was discovered that what they wanted to be in the law was not there they just pretended as if was because it was "intended" to be in the law.
 
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.

:lamo If it's not in the EO itself then the courts have to recognize this and move on.
 
If it's not in the EO itself then the courts have to recognize this and move on.

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.
 
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.
 
It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.

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?
 
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?

Oh, it's a brilliant idea. As long as the extreme right is always in charge.





Wait. No.

It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.

Apdst: that was a very, stupid, crappy, and reactionary idea that manages to fail on its own terms. It fails on just about every other set of terms, but that's not what makes it special.

You would not have been happy if Obama agreed with you on 1/20/09.
 
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?

I want judges to decide cases (not rule) according to The Constitution, period. The two judges in the immigration case made decisions based on their personal politics. Neither of them used the law, nor The Constitution to come to their decision.
 
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.

eo/ statute has to be ruled on based on its text and nothing else, it canot be ruled on by what is the intent
 
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.

The judges can't use campaign rhetoric. They're making decision on the executive order, not on President Trump's personal politics.
 
Does the constitution say that? ;)

It doesn't give them power to do otherwise, so yes.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
I want judges to decide cases (not rule) according to The Constitution, period. The two judges in the immigration case made decisions based on their personal politics. Neither of them used the law, nor The Constitution to come to their decision.

So you have not read their rulings. Hint: they do follow the law.
 
Oh, it's a brilliant idea. As long as the extreme right is always in charge.





Wait. No.



Apdst: that was a very, stupid, crappy, and reactionary idea that manages to fail on its own terms. It fails on just about every other set of terms, but that's not what makes it special.

You would not have been happy if Obama agreed with you on 1/20/09.

You're only saying that because you agree with the ruling. One day, you're not going like it when judges make decisions like that.
 
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.

As soon as you can drum up some other countries that are overrun with terrorists that have exported that terrorism around the world you can let me know.
 
The judges can't use campaign rhetoric. They're making decision on the executive order, not on President Trump's personal politics.

Where in the constitution does it say they cannot use campaign statements?
 
Since when did the constitution demand that things be Explicitly stated?

Does Section 2, Article three give judges the power to rule based on personal feelings? If so, show me.
 
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.

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.
 
Where in the constitution does it say they cannot use campaign statements?

It specifically says laws. There's nothing about campaign rhetoric.
 
Does Section 2, Article three give judges the power to rule based on personal feelings? If so, show me.

The judges have not ruled on "personal feelings". I strongly suggest you read the rulings. Feelings are not the basis for them.
 
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.

You don't need a law degree to understand the Constitution, just on how to distort it.
 
Back
Top Bottom