• 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!

Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Fenton said:
Lol...
Im shocked !! Im sure the only thing that makes this unconstitutonal according to the 4rth is that Trump made the order.

Something tells me if HRC had made it it would have been fine.
This is unbeleivable
Click to expand...



Please present your evidence that the court is so corrupt it rules against Trump for ideological reasons...

As usual there isn't any and as usual it has no basis in fact. What it says is that Trump's supporters are so corrupt that that is the way THEY would do it.

One of these days you're going to gave to accept that Trump is a fake.....not the news
 
Top Cat said:
Trump loses again because that's what losers do.
Click to expand...

And Trump has to lose big to make sure that the deplorables never try this stunt again before that human garbage finally dies off.

What ever it takes, the ends justify the means, Trumpism is an existential threat, **** fair and free elections.
 
Napoleon said:
Um, you do know that intent to commit a crime is a crime don't you? Haven't you ever heard of possession with intent to distribute, criminal conspiracy, etc. Theres an entire class of crimes that fall under the umbrella of intent. Are you genuinely unaware of that?
Click to expand...

Lol !!
If your'e busted for posession, then thats the crime. Intent to distribute is added and has to be backed up with other surrounding evidence albeit circumstantial. Like large amounts of money, large quantities of the drug, packaging materials, etc, not just a prior statement stating that that was your purpose.

You cannot be found guilty of theft if all you said was, " one day I want to rob a bank " and the Constitutionality of a EO cannot be determined legitmately based on camapign speech especially when the entire content of the EO is being ignored.
 
Fenton said:
It was the ACLUs attorney arguing against the order without even addressing the content of it.

Yes, he also claimed Hillary Clintons identical order would have been constitutional

Im not misleading anyone, just posting the facts.
Click to expand...

He said, quite specifically, that some one, for example Clinton, who had not made the statements Trump had made, would have potentially had a different outcome. This had nothing to do with who they are(as you tried to imply dishonestly), and instead to do with the actions taken.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please present your evidence that the court is so corrupt it rules against Trump for ideological reasons...

As usual there isn't any and as usual it has no basis in fact. What it says is that Trump's supporters are so corrupt that that is the way THEY would do it.

One of these days you're going to gave to accept that Trump is a fake.....not the news
Click to expand...

Here ya go...

ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

Blog: ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

" Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.

The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination. "
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!
If your'e busted for posession, then thats the crime. Intent to distribute is added and has to be backed up with other surrounding evidence albeit circumstantial. Like large amounts of money, large quantities of the drug, packaging materials, etc, not just a prior statement stating that that was your purpose.

You cannot be found guilty of theft if all you said was, " one day I want to rob a bank " and the Constitutionality of a EO cannot be determined legitmately based on camapign speech especially when the entire content of the EO is being ignored.
Click to expand...

And guess what we have as evidence that serves as the vehicle of that stated intent in the same way that 50 pounds of illegal substances packed and ready to go serves for the drug dealer. Two letters: E.O.
 
Redress said:
He said, quite specifically, that some one, for example Clinton, who had not made the statements Trump had made, would have potentially had a different outcome. This had nothing to do with who they are(as you tried to imply dishonestly), and instead to do with the actions taken.
Click to expand...

Trumps statements are irrelevent....for the last time. The ACLU lawyer and the 4rth court didnt rule on the content of the order, it was ignored and argued that Trumps statement should take legal precedent

Thats why SCOTUS will strike this ruling down
 
Fenton said:
The ACLU attorney argued that Trumps prior statements on the campaign trail made his order illegal.

Thats absolute bull **** and a dangerous over reach by a activist judiciary thats clearly putting ideology and party over people and the Nation

He didnt even argue the content of the order, and this is why the 4rth courts decision will be struck down.

Thank god for Gorsuch, amirght ??
Click to expand...



Please show us your law degree.

Seriously dude, do you really expect people to take accept your opinion. First, you are protecting the most dishonest man to have ever held the White House and two, the article does not say what you think it does.

Really, your legal opinions have no basis in fact and are the result of an apparent man crush on the world's greatest liar.
 
Fenton said:
Trumps statements are irrelevent....for the last time. The ACLU lawyer and the 4rth court didnt rule on the content of the order, it was ignored and argued that Trumps statement should take legal precedent

Thats why SCOTUS will strike this ruling down
Click to expand...

The ACLU lawyer did not rule on anything, he presented an argument. Your ignorance of the first amendment, of the actual legal argument, and what was actually in play here(hint: the court did not rule against the ban, they ruled to keep a stay in place) is kind of sad.
 
Fenton said:
Here ya go...

ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

Blog: ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

" Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.

The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination. "
Click to expand...



You tried that earlier.

Nowhere is there one shred of "evidence", merely an opinion of one person.

Where is your evidence.

You made the claim which implied corruption in the courts. You have to supply it.

I doubt you will. Lying is the Trump world's trump card.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please show us your law degree.

Seriously dude, do you really expect people to take accept your opinion. First, you are protecting the most dishonest man to have ever held the White House and two, the article does not say what you think it does.

Really, your legal opinions have no basis in fact and are the result of an apparent man crush on the world's greatest liar.
Click to expand...

There is no way to know who was/is the most dishonest man ever to hold the WH.
Every attorney I know believes the SCOTUS will uphold Trump.
 
Essentially the argument against Trump is that his intent was to ban Muslims. The lawyers are saying that his words "ban Muslims" shows intent. Ok, I can accept that. But does the EO show that intent being enacted?

According to Blacks Law dictionary the definition of intent is:

1. In criminal law and the law of evidence. Purpose; formulated design ; a resolve to do or forbear a particular act; aim; determination. In its literal sense, the stretching of the mind or will towards a particular object. . “Intent” expresses mental action at its most advanced point, or as it actually accompanies an outward, corporal act which has been determined on- Intent shows the presence of will in the act which consummates a crime. It is ‘the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (o be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 284. and notes.
Click to expand...

Intent

Ok, by this legal definition of law intent has to be shown through action. It is the "the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (o be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it." So, from what I can tell of the law two things need to be shown for intent. 1: The thought to do it. In this case it can be shown via Trumps own words. The second thing that needs to be shown is action to carry out the intent. Is there ANYTHING in the EO, which is the act, which indicates that the intent is being carried out?
 
Fearandloathing said:
You tried that earlier.

Nowhere is there one shred of "evidence", merely an opinion of one person.

Where is your evidence.

You made the claim which implied corruption in the courts. You have to supply it.

I doubt you will. Lying is the Trump world's trump card.
Click to expand...

Yep, I tried it and it was predictably ignored

A ACLU attorney not arguing the merits or constitutionality of a EO and then stating it would be Constitutional had HRC given it and worse a Appeals court agreeing is evidence enough

Of-course if you dont believe a democratically elected President , Donald Trump is being undermined by the opposition then nothing will convince you
 
Redress said:
The ACLU lawyer did not rule on anything, he presented an argument. Your ignorance of the first amendment, of the actual legal argument, and what was actually in play here(hint: the court did not rule against the ban, they ruled to keep a stay in place) is kind of sad.
Click to expand...

The ACLU lawyer argued the case, the 4rth agreed. Kind of a distinction without a difference.

Plus, when I mention " judicial activism " Im not refering to the attorney
 
Fenton said:
Yep, I tried it and it was predictably ignored

A ACLU attorney not arguing the merits or constitutionality of a EO and then stating it would be Constitutional had HRC given it and worse a Appeals court agreeing is evidence enough

Of-course if you dont believe a democratically elected President , Donald Trump is being undermined by the opposition then nothing will convince you
Click to expand...

The ACLU attorney did not make the ruling. Stop with the red herring. Why are you so afraid of talking about the actual ruling? Has no blog told you what to think about it yet?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please show us your law degree.

Seriously dude, do you really expect people to take accept your opinion. First, you are protecting the most dishonest man to have ever held the White House and two, the article does not say what you think it does.

Really, your legal opinions have no basis in fact and are the result of an apparent man crush on the world's greatest liar.
Click to expand...

Lol...You dont need one in this case. The Constitutionallity of the EO is literally being argued on the basis of who's given it, not on its content.
 
Redress said:
The ACLU attorney did not make the ruling. Stop with the red herring. Why are you so afraid of talking about the actual ruling? Has no blog told you what to think about it yet?
Click to expand...

Again, the ACLU attorney made the argument, the Court agreed and made the ruling

When does the term " judicial activism ", which Ive repeatedly used ever apply to the attorney and not the Judge ?
 
Fenton said:
The ACLU lawyer argued the case, the 4rth agreed. Kind of a distinction without a difference.

Plus, when I mention " judicial activism " Im not refering to the attorney
Click to expand...

No, that is not the actual facts. The ACLU lawyer presented multiple arguments. You are using(and misrepresenting) only one.
 
Cardinal said:
On that level, Trump apparently also believes that so long as he crosses his fingers behind his back then he can lie with impunity.
Click to expand...

Translation Spock?
 
bubbabgone said:
Translation Spock?
Click to expand...

Trump believed that his public statements (which announced his intent) could be divorced from the literal text of the Executive Order. He was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
The ACLU attorney argued that Trumps prior statements on the campaign trail made his order illegal.

Thats absolute bull **** and a dangerous over reach by a activist judiciary thats clearly putting ideology and party over people and the Nation

He didnt even argue the content of the order, and this is why the 4rth courts decision will be struck down.

Thank god for Gorsuch, amirght ??
Click to expand...

This was the lawyer, not the judiciary. But I dont think it is overreach. I think that it is akin to the notion that a court can go to the intent of Congress, for example, those things said in Congress by the person who introduced a law about its intended effect, even if the language does not specify those intentions. So, an extreme example, the congressman says "black people are dangerous" as he introduces his bill restricting their rights. But the language of the bill only mentions curly haired people, not race. I, with my curly hair, would be banned, though I am not black, so one could make the argument that the law is not racial. The court rejects this and takes note of the language as indicating biased intent. Trump trashed Muslims during his campaign. He has to figure out away to ban them without an order that bans them. Reportedly, with Giuliani's help, he comes up with a ban that does not mention Muslims, keeps significant numbers of them out, and keeps his dumb campaign promise. Scalia scoffed at the sort of judicial reasoning I describe that uses what Trump said, naively, in my view, saying the language controls absolutely, but other justices have made decisions in this manner for decades, as I understand things.

What Trump is doing is no different than historic attempts to restrict Italian or Jewish or Irish immigration, playing on fear of crime. As I noted, I believe that he has a chance to win this with the Supremes. There is precedent in Reagan's interdiction of Haitians, but I am a lay person not familiar with enough law to judge other than in our exchanges here. It is still based on fear, which is some part of Trump's political strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom