• 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

You are dismissed to the corner. You are no longer allowed to discuss matters related to civics.

Lol, that's what I thought. As usual, you've got nothing.
 
Depends what it is.

Certain subject matters are non-justiciable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

excellent!

Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government.

Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
 
Last edited:
Therefore random internet posters who don't even have the training to be a bad lawyer know more about the law or ______________ ?

Only lawyers get to have an opinion?
 
It's definitely time to hand out some walking papers and remind the judiciary that there constitutional limits to their power.

There have been a number of decisions handed down that seem to go further than Constitutionally intended. But, when the public paradigm is being supported as was the case in the civil liberties decisions politicians will tend not to go against the tide.
 
You're derailing the thread by trying to make an issue out of how literal it was my duty to be when I said people on DP aren't backing up their claims about constitutionality with actual legal argument or anything like it, then getting me to argue about whether or not I should go read 95 pages of another thread to try to find what you claim is there.

If you want to actually point me to the posts in question and make your own point, I may look at them. Otherwise, it's just trolling.

:roll:

What is it with all these people lately who think that just because the other person doesn't respond to their posts exactly the way they'd prefer, the other person is "trolling"?

Whatever you post is fair game for comment, period, which I will do as I choose, not according to your requirements. I spoke to a point and then sent you to where you can find the additional things you asked for, which were not part of the point I spoke to.

I also didn't try "to get you to" do anything; I said specifically that it's immaterial whether you read it or not. It's YOU who have chosen to belabor it, not I.
 
Last edited:
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.

yea because you are closing places of worship with a specific symbol.
it should be struck down.

this EO does none of that.
also it is not permanent it is temporary.
 
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?

they are not ruling based on law now but political ideology.
 
yea because you are closing places of worship with a specific symbol.
it should be struck down.

this EO does none of that.
also it is not permanent it is temporary.

Whatever, so I only shut down churches in regions that only have Christian churches. You can quibble the details all day long but the principle is the same.
 
Whatever, so I only shut down churches in regions that only have Christian churches. You can quibble the details all day long but the principle is the same.

well since 47 Muslims countries are freely allowed to travel to the US your point is moot.
so is the judges. funny how he left that out of his opinion.
 
well since 47 Muslims countries are freely allowed to travel to the US your point is moot.
so is the judges. funny how he left that out of his opinion.

Okay, so I'm President and claim on the public record that my intent is to shut down exclusively Christian churches, but I don't include that language into an executive order in which only Christian churches are shut down. How many exclusively Christian churches will need to be shut down before a judge accepts that a clear motive against Christian churches exists?

Is it ten? Twelve? A hundred? A thousand?
 
Okay, so I'm President and claim on the public record that my intent is to shut down exclusively Christian churches, but I don't include that language into an executive order in which only Christian churches are shut down. How many exclusively Christian churches will need to be shut down before a judge accepts that a clear motive against Christian churches exists?

Is it ten? Twelve? A hundred? A thousand?

yep that is against the constitution.

issuing travel bans to certain countries is not against the constitution.
you are making a false equivalency fallacy and don't realize it, or do realize it and don't care.

one the president doesn't have the power to do.
the other he does.

non-citizens do not have a constitutional right to free travel to the US.
 
yep that is against the constitution.

issuing travel bans to certain countries is not against the constitution.
you are making a false equivalency fallacy and don't realize it, or do realize it and don't care.

one the president doesn't have the power to do.
the other he does.

non-citizens do not have a constitutional right to free travel to the US.

Actually, you jumped into the middle of a conversation. I was addressing two specific points:

1)Does it matter if the intent, no matter how publicly or frequently it has been repeated, have any place in judicial review?
and
2)Do all Muslim countries have to be targeted in order for the EO to be religiously biased?
 
Actually, you jumped into the middle of a conversation. I was addressing two specific points:

1)Does it matter if the intent, no matter how publicly or frequently it has been repeated, have any place in judicial review?
and
2)Do all Muslim countries have to be targeted in order for the EO to be religiously biased?

The objective is jihadists. As such, Muslims are going to get caught up in it.
 
Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government.

Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

borrowed from harshaw
 
The objective is jihadists. As such, Muslims are going to get caught up in it.

Well if that's the objective then obviously the executive order fails about as miserably as humanly possible.
 
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.

In Trumps case, the judge used campaign language as part of his basis for interpreting the intent of the E.O. Using this logic, the judge has single handedly determined that everything trump campaigned on is poison, and everything the does is "fruit of the poison tree."

This is lunacy. A judge is supposed to rule on the evidence presented, not campaign language.

An appellate judge this incompetent should be impeached.
 
In Trumps case, the judge used campaign language as part of his basis for interpreting the intent of the E.O. Using this logic, the judge has single handedly determined that everything trump campaigned on is poison, and everything the does is "fruit of the poison tree."

This is lunacy. A judge is supposed to rule on the evidence presented, not campaign language.

Why do you say that?

An appellate judge this incompetent should be impeached.
 
Well if that's the objective then obviously the executive order fails about as miserably as humanly possible.

As it is thus an issue of national security, it thus succeeds. The judiciary has no role or competency in such a role of government-- balance of power and all that.
 
As it is thus an issue of national security, it thus succeeds. The judiciary has no role or competency in such a role of government-- balance of power and all that.

The executive order doesn't address the threat it's it was supposedly intended to address, therefore it's a success.

Hooooooooooooo....kayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. :cuckoo:
 
The executive order doesn't address the threat it's it was supposedly intended to address, therefore it's a success.

Hooooooooooooo....kayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. :cuckoo:

Maybe so. Maybe not.
Doesn't really matter. The courts certainly lack the knowledge to decide either way.
 
Why do you say that?

Because when a trial judge goes off the rails you can go to the appellate, but if the appellate is off the rails, SCOTUS is your only hope. You cannot afford to have excessive incompetence at that level because for all intents and purposes, you are denied justice.
 
Back
Top Bottom