Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

piezoe said:
Gay marriage is not in the Constitution but equal protection is! We do control our borders and the control is tighter than it has ever been. So the case is obviously not about whether the U.S. can control its borders. That's already settled. It can. This case is about something else. I'm not sure what it is about. I presume that will become clear as the case winds its way through the Court System. One possibility is that it's about whether executive orders must have a rational basis. Is whatever the President says true and unchallengeable, or may the President's decisions be challenged in court? Must those decisions have a rational basis, or can they be based on pandering to a political base without a rational basis underlying them? Can actual harm outweigh conjectural harm? Stay tuned, We will know the answers to these questions in good time. We don't elect Presidents democratically, and the courts don't make decisions based on opinion polls. If you want to change that, your going to need a different constitution.
More...

So Arizona passes a law that allows its police to enforce Federal law, and Obama's courts rule that immigration is a Federal issue and the court scraps the law. Then all these cities decide they are going to have sanctuary cities and allow people to openly break the law, and according to these same assholes, immigration can be determined at the city level. Now Washington state sues the Feds because they don't like Federal immigration policy and the court is fine with it.

To top it off, all these left wingers are blasting Trump for criticizing the court. I seem to remember Obama tearing into the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Of course at that time, they media was all over Alito because he shook his head no and by reading his lips you could see him say 'Not True'. Its fine for Obama to rip the court, but when Trump says something against the Courts, its a huge deal. I was also pretty swell when Ginsburg was out there acting a surrogate for Hillary Clinton. So much for the court being apolitical.

Its complete bullshit and it makes no sense. Once again the left wing cannot win on based on its ideas, so they govern by judicial fiat. Obama has done a great deal of damage to this country and it will take decades to remove all his henchmen from power.
 
The Trump administration has a simple way of putting this issue to rest. Trump, with the stroke of a pen can rescind his ill thought out, incredibly stupid, absurd executive order and issue a carefully drafted, thoroughly vetted, rational order, prepared in consultation with experts. Such an order would withstand challenges. Why doesn't he do that then? Pigheadedness I suppose. Are we to be subjected to this nonsense for the next four years until we can finally rid ourselves of this fool; this horrible embarrassment? I suppose so.
 
piezoe said:
Gay marriage is not in the Constitution but equal protection is! We do control our borders and the control is tighter than it has ever been. So the case is obviously not about whether the U.S. can control its borders. That's already settled. It can. This case is about something else. I'm not sure what it is about. I presume that will become clear as the case winds its way through the Court System. One possibility is that it's about whether executive orders must have a rational basis. Is whatever the President says true and unchallengeable, or may the President's decisions be challenged in court? Must those decisions have a rational basis, or can they be based on pandering to a political base without a rational basis underlying them? Can actual harm outweigh conjectural harm? Stay tuned, We will know the answers to these questions in good time. We don't elect Presidents democratically, and the courts don't make decisions based on opinion polls. If you want to change that, your going to need a different constitution.
More...
 
piezoe said:
Gay marriage is not in the Constitution but equal protection is! We do control our borders and the control is tighter than it has ever been. So the case is obviously not about whether the U.S. can control its borders. That's already settled. It can. This case is about something else. I'm not sure what it is about. I presume that will become clear as the case winds its way through the Court System. One possibility is that it's about whether executive orders must have a rational basis. Is whatever the President says true and unchallengeable, or may the President's decisions be challenged in court? Must those decisions have a rational basis, or can they be based on pandering to a political base without a rational basis underlying them? Can actual harm outweigh conjectural harm? Stay tuned, We will know the answers to these questions in good time. We don't elect Presidents democratically, and the courts don't make decisions based on opinion polls. If you want to change that, your going to need a different constitution.
More...

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the court is allowed to redefine the definition of a word. No dictionary I can find defines marriage as way to get your sexual kicks. Its a ridiculous argument.
 
wildchild said:
So Arizona passes a law that allows its police to enforce Federal law, and Obama's courts rule that immigration is a Federal issue and the court scraps the law. Then all these cities decide they are going to have sanctuary cities and allow people to openly break the law, and according to these same assholes, immigration can be determined at the city level. Now Washington state sues the Feds because they don't like Federal immigration policy and the court is fine with it.

To top it off, all these left wingers are blasting Trump for criticizing the court. I seem to remember Obama tearing into the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Of course at that time, they media was all over Alito because he shook his head no and by reading his lips you could see him say 'Not True'. Its fine for Obama to rip the court, but when Trump says something against the Courts, its a huge deal. I was also pretty swell when Ginsburg was out there acting a surrogate for Hillary Clinton. So much for the court being apolitical.

Its complete bullshit and it makes no sense. Once again the left wing cannot win on based on its ideas, so they govern by judicial fiat. Obama has done a great deal of damage to this country and it will take decades to remove all his henchmen from power.
More...
You raise some interesting points, while neglecting some features of the Obama versus Trump criticisms that should be considered. For example, I don't see anything wrong with the President being critical of the Court when they disagree, but I should not have to put up with an ignoramus as my President; one whose temperament apparently renders him unable to voice criticism in civil terms and in a form other than crass insults. If you or I want to hurl vulgar insults at the Court, that's fine, who cares, the Court will not hear them. But when the President criticizes the Court his criticism had better be circumspect, substantive, and civil. Otherwise he is acting the part of an uncivilized bore. What an embarrassment Trump is turning out to be!

I must agree that Ginsberg overstepped badly when she commented on the political campaign. She quickly apologized and backtracked, but the damage was already done. It's not that we don't know that our justices are human with their own opinions and biases, its that we hold them to a very high standard which requires that they keep their political views private and out of the public ear. We ask that they do all in their power to suppress their personal biases when ruling from the bench. Our right to expect that stems directly from the position of privilege we have granted to them!
 
Frederick Foresight said:
If only the judges in this case had your legal training and background...
More...
Which makes this all the more disturbing. This is law at a high school government course level. Of course this assumes the 9th wishes to enforce the constitution and it's painfully obvious that isn't in their playbook.
 
ban.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top