Lawmakers warn judges ruling on travel bans against exceeding power

[apdst]

So EOs and EAs are not subject to judicial review? You sure you want to go with that silly argument?

Ok, written law and EO's and EA's, since all you have is hair splitting. Feel better?

 

[Redress]

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.

So you are also unaware of what the first amendment says. Maybe you should check your the constitution before you try and tell people what the constitution says.

 

[trouble13]

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.

I dont see how you can violate a persons constitutional rights who does not have any

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

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.

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.

:2wave:

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.

The accepted judicial rules of construction are:

1) Go by the text.

If the text is clear, there's no reason to go beyond it to discern its meaning.

2) If the text is unclear, try to discern what it means by looking to evidence of intent.

The text of the EO wasn't unclear. It wasn't internally inconsistent, and the countries involved were taken from a list created by the previous administration. There wasn't any reason to go outside of it . . . unless you were looking for a reason to try to declare it invalid.

 

[Redress]

Ok, written law and EO's and EA's, since all you have is hair splitting. Feel better?

How about actions of elected officials? Unelected public servants? What about state laws? See, if you make statements, you should make sure they are at least close to accurate. It would help your posting alot. Do some research. Read the constitution. Read the rulings under discussion.

 

[apdst]

So you are also unaware of what the first amendment says. Maybe you should check your the constitution before you try and tell people what the constitution says.

Where does the EO establish religion, or prohibit the free practice thereof? Show us.

 

[apdst]

How about actions of elected officials? Unelected public servants? What about state laws? See, if you make statements, you should make sure they are at least close to accurate. It would help your posting alot. Do some research. Read the constitution. Read the rulings under discussion.

Ooooooh, you're drifting off unto what-if-land. Come'on back and join the discussion.

 

[independentusa]

Hate to tell you but this is what the balance of powers is all about. Just remember that courts gave us Citizens United, a court case that is almost impoosible to find in our constitution.

 

[Harshaw]

So EOs and EAs are not subject to judicial review? You sure you want to go with that silly argument?

Depends what it is.

Certain subject matters are non-justiciable.

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

 

[Mr Person]

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.

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?

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?

Clearly, people who have spent their lives doing what you never did must be pretentiously conspiring against you when they reject your two-sentence argument about what the constitution means.

Clearly.

It's all a big conspiracy. How could it not be, when whatever you say about the constitution's meaning is true by virtue of your typed or said it, but evil LawyerJudgesElites don't have the same magic fingers?






As I said in the post that provoked your attention, there's a reason you're saying what you're saying and it's not that you are capable of explaining why a particular decision was incorrectly decided. You don't like the result, so you say they don't know what they're doing. There only seem to be two areas where this happens and maybe it's a big coincidence they're two professional issues most converted to publicity, the constitutional interpretation branch of legal analysis and any portion of science related to AGW.

We both know that the second the federal government passes strong legislation regarding things that relate to cardiovascular health, 70% of posters will suddenly behave like experts on that subject despite not having anything close to expertise. It'll be just like the prior to subjects mentioned.

 

[Mr Person]

The accepted judicial rules of construction are:

1) Go by the text.

If the text is clear, there's no reason to go beyond it to discern its meaning.

2) If the text is unclear, try to discern what it means by looking to evidence of intent.

The text of the EO wasn't unclear. It wasn't internally inconsistent, and the countries involved were taken from a list created by the previous administration. There wasn't any reason to go outside of it . . . unless you were looking for a reason to try to declare it invalid.

Plain language is used first. It is not the be-all, end-all.

If you want to be the first person on DP to provide a legal argument as to why the judge's decision is wrong, go for it. But I didn't read the decision and the only reason I'm posting is that it's clear that none of its critics did either. They're just blabbing at it using fragments of things they heard in pro-Trump conservative media.

By all means, convince me with an argument suited for court. But do not quote an oversimplified definition of the starting point of statutory* intent analysis as if it somehow makes the judge wrong.





*As I said elsewhere, I am not studied in whatever law exists on challenges to EOs. Are you entirely sure the principles/etc are exactly the same for statutory intent as the intent of the chief executive in issuing an order? Do you know the relative importance of the intent to the challenge?

I don't, but do you? (I doubt there is much law on it)

 

[Harshaw]

Plain language is used first. It is not the be-all, end-all.

If you want to be the first person on DP to provide a legal argument as to why the judge's decision is wrong, go for it. But I didn't read the decision and the only reason I'm posting is that it's clear that none of its critics did either. They're just blabbing at it using fragments of things they heard in pro-Trump conservative media.

By all means, convince me with an argument suited for court. But do not quote an oversimplified definition of the starting point of statutory* intent analysis as if it somehow makes the judge wrong.





*As I said elsewhere, I am not studied in whatever law exists on challenges to EOs. Are you entirely sure the principles/etc are exactly the same for statutory intent as the intent of the chief executive in issuing an order? Do you know the relative importance of the intent to the challenge?

I don't, but do you?

The first person at DP to do so?

The wrongness of it has already been parsed out in another thread, by multiple lawyers:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ederal-judge-blocks-new-trump-travel-ban.html

As for the rules of construction, I stated them as a response to specific points made in this thread, not as a "be-all end-all."

 

[Mr Person]

The first person at DP to do so?

The wrongness of it has already been parsed out in another thread, by multiple lawyers:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ederal-judge-blocks-new-trump-travel-ban.html

As for the rules of construction, I stated them as a response to specific points made in this thread, not as a "be-all end-all."

___________

Bob: "[here's a link to 95 page thread. Go read through 95 pages of posts to try to identify what I'm claiming "wrongness . . . parsed out in another thread, by multiple lawyers" despite being able to identify them in the least, and just trust me that when you actually spend the time to read through all that, parse out their posts, and respond, I'll come back and address you point for point.]"

Joe: Gee, that doesn't sound like trolling. I'll go do that. Get back to you tomorrow.

____________



:doh



You have got to be kidding. I am not reading through 95 pages of other people's posts to try to find what you think proves you correct.

 

[Redress]

Depends what it is.

Certain subject matters are non-justiciable.

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

This is why I love DP. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the link!

 

[Fishking]

Clearly, people who have spent their lives doing what you never did must be pretentiously conspiring against you when they reject your two-sentence argument about what the constitution means.

Yeah...because it totes takes hundreds of years to perfect the meaning of something that's been around the entire time. They've delved deep into this mysterious thing to find hidden gems of knowledge that no one knew before.

It's all a big conspiracy. How could it not be, when whatever you say about the constitution's meaning is true by virtue of your typed or said it, but evil LawyerJudgesElites don't have the same magic fingers

It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.

 

[Harshaw]

___________

Bob: "[here's a link to 95 page thread. Go read through 95 pages of posts to try to identify what I'm claiming "wrongness . . . parsed out in another thread, by multiple lawyers" despite being able to identify them in the least, and just trust me that when you actually spend the time to read through all that, parse out their posts, and respond, I'll come back and address you point for point.]"

Joe: Gee, that doesn't sound like trolling. I'll go do that. Get back to you tomorrow.

____________



:doh



You have got to be kidding. I am not reading through 95 pages of other people's posts to try to find what you think proves you correct.

The point was, despite what you seem to think, it has already been done here at DP. Whether or not you read it is immaterial.

 

[Mr Person]

So EOs and EAs are not subject to judicial review? You sure you want to go with that silly argument?

Depends what it is.

Certain subject matters are non-justiciable.

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

This is why I love DP. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the link!

Careful. That paragraph comes NOWHERE near to summing up the body of law called the "political question" doctrine.

He cited a legal dictionary. Those provide the vaguest basics of a term. To actually understand what is being talked about, you have to at the very least read a section of a respected treatise on the subject that generally summarizes things. Better yet, read a whole bunch of cases, the cases they cite, and so on. Someone could cite you the Black Book definition of "probable cause" and it wouldn't tell you a damn thing about whether or not a specific set of facts gave rise to probable cause for a police officer to arrest someone.


So yeah, "[c]ertain subject matters are non-justiciable." But the link and its contents do not resolve the issues at play here.

 

[eohrnberger]

The judges can't use campaign rhetoric. They're making decision on the executive order, not on President Trump's personal politics.

That was my thinking too.

How does campaign rhetoric, which, more often than not is bombast and hyperbole, is now raised to the same level as evidence and the actual text of a presidential EO? Or does this only happen when it's convenient? When it's in alignment of these judge's personal politics?

 

[Harshaw]

Careful. That paragraph comes NOWHERE near to summing up the body of law called the "political question" doctrine.

He cited a legal dictionary. Those provide the vaguest basics of a term. To actually understand what is being talked about, you have to at the very least read a section of a respected treatise on the subject that generally summarizes things. Better yet, read a whole bunch of cases, the cases they cite, and so on. Someone could cite you the Black Book definition of "probable cause" and it wouldn't tell you a damn thing about whether or not a specific set of facts gave rise to probable cause for a police officer to arrest someone.


So yeah, "[c]ertain subject matters are non-justiciable." But the link and its contents do not resolve the issues at play here.

The link was sufficient to speak to the point to which I was responding. You really should make an effort to read better. :roll:

 

[Redress]

Careful. That paragraph comes NOWHERE near to summing up the body of law called the "political question" doctrine.

He cited a legal dictionary. Those provide the vaguest basics of a term. To actually understand what is being talked about, you have to at the very least read a section of a respected treatise on the subject that generally summarizes things. Better yet, read a whole bunch of cases, the cases they cite, and so on. Someone could cite you the Black Book definition of "probable cause" and it wouldn't tell you a damn thing about whether or not a specific set of facts gave rise to probable cause for a police officer to arrest someone.


So yeah, "[c]ertain subject matters are non-justiciable." But the link and its contents do not resolve the issues at play here.

Harshaw and I have argued alot over the years. He is aware I think that I won't stop at his link, but he did deserve thanks because he did give me a starting place for something I did not know.

 

[Mr Person]

The point was, despite what you seem to think, it has already been done here at DP. Whether or not you read it is immaterial.

Because of course, you won many arguments by telling the judge to go find the answer on Westlaw.

 

[Harshaw]

Because of course, you won many arguments by telling the judge to go find the answer in the case law and sitting right back down.

I wasn't aware that I was trying to win that particular argument. I merely told you where to find what you said you wanted to see. :shrug:

 

[Mr Person]

I wasn't aware that I was trying to win that particular argument. I merely told you where to find what you said you wanted to see.

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.

 

[countryboy]

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?

You do realize there are bad lawyers, right? :roll:

 

[Mr Person]

You do realize there are bad lawyers, right? :roll:

Therefore random internet posters who don't even have the training to be a bad lawyer know more about the law or ______________ ?