Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

[CaptainObvious]

View attachment 170702

I agree with the face palm. How can anyone claim the president does not have the authority to ban immigration after reading this?

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

 

[piezoe]

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.

Don't courts routinely settle the meaning of words, the legal meaning, via litigation? But that case was not about the dictionary definition of marriage, though the defendant tried to fall back on the long standing, historical definition of the word "marriage"; it was a weak argument when up against bedrock Constitutional issues, and bound to fail! Just as words change their meaning spontaneously over time, and before any dictionaries have time to respond, a new definition for Marriage arose spontaneously from litigation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. You will find the new, broadened definition already reflected in English dictionaries.

In any case, you reasoning here is somewhat flawed. You made the point that the Constitution does not say that the court is allowed to redefine words. And you are right! The Constitution is silent with regard to the Court redefining words. And, as I'm certain would have occurred to you had you only thought about it for a moment, when the Constitution does not speak directly to an issue, it neither allows nor prohibits, unless some clever lawyer can convince the Court otherwise.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I agree with the face palm. How can anyone claim the president does not have the authority to ban immigration after reading this?

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Right. So all Trump has to do is magically utter "national security" whenever it pleases him, facts notwithstanding, and do an end run around the judicial branch.

Nice try.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

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.

You nailed it. Liberals have an annoying habit of not living by the same rules they impose on others.

 

[CaptainObvious]

[QUOTE"Frederick Foresight, post: 4405908, member: 488296"]Right. So all Trump has to do is magically utter "national security" whenever it pleases him, facts notwithstanding, and do an end run around the judicial branch.

Nice try.

[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what he has the authority to do be it Trump or any other president, and this power has already been exercised a number of times by other presidents. Can this power have the potential to be abused? Absolutely. That is for congress to determine and write new legislation if they deem it to be the more prudent path. During that period of congressional debate the president still has the authority and the court has no authority, none at all, to write new legislation via judicial opinion.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

If you want to change that, your going to need a different constitution.

I'm fine with the constitution we have. It's the evil bastards pretending to be judges who are the problem.

You do see that a system in which any controversial executive order can be immediately stayed nationwide by a single obscure district court judge is problematic?

This was a case in which the plaintiffs brought specious claims of derivative harm through a handful of aliens being barred. Somehow the judge leveraged that into setting himself up as a special court for immigration policy. The freakin' president now has to justify himself on national security matters before some dimwit judge in Seattle.

You can argue that it isn't really national security, that Trump is just claiming that as a pretext. Can you really say though that there is no rational national security issue at all in admitting immigrant from these countries? You may disagree with the severity of the problem, but surely there is an issue. Beyond that, it becomes a policy issue and we elect people to decide those issues.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I'm fine with the constitution we have. It's the evil bastards pretending to be judges who are the problem.

You do see that a system in which any controversial executive order can be immediately stayed nationwide by a single obscure district court judge is problematic?

This was a case in which the plaintiffs brought specious claims of derivative harm through a handful of aliens being barred. Somehow the judge leveraged that into setting himself up as a special court for immigration policy. The freakin' president now has to justify himself on national security matters before some dimwit judge in Seattle.

You can argue that it isn't really national security, that Trump is just claiming that as a pretext. Can you really say though that there is no rational national security issue at all in admitting immigrant from these countries? You may disagree with the severity of the problem, but surely there is an issue. Beyond that, it becomes a policy issue and we elect people to decide those issues.

So what you're saying is that you don't understand the Constitution. Fair enough.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

You have to realize I'm handicapped somewhat because only liberals have access to the invisible ink clauses in the Constitution. You know, the ones where they say gay marriage and abortion are guaranteed rights, and the Executive branch has authority over immigration except if some obscure district court judge decides he would like to run it.

 

[piezoe]

This guys reasoning and prediction turned out to be flawed. What he failed to recognize was that the order was so ham handedly drawn that it could, and was, interpreted to apply to those who had already legally immigrated but happened to be out of the country when Trump signed the order. Thus Trump's order lay outside the current law. The later attempts to walk this back were only verbal, which is not sufficient.. They would have had to immediately rescind the order and issue a new, corrected one. Why didn't they do that? I suppose it's because it takes time, and expert advice, to concoct a legal order, and Trump was still thinking he was starring on the Apprentice, instead of serving a Great nation as its President.

Watch! You are going to see with time that he is under tremendous pressure from the Republican Leadership to act civilized and less vulgar, to lie less, and to behave less like a thirteen-year-old in diapers. But will his temperament permit it? That's the big question. In the meantime, why should we pay this guy while he is still in diapers?

 

[piezoe]

You have to realize I'm handicapped somewhat because only liberals have access to the invisible ink clauses in the Constitution. You know, the ones where they say gay marriage and abortion are guaranteed rights, and the Executive branch has authority over immigration except if some obscure district court judge decides he would like to run it.

We get it! You don't understand the Constitution. Let's move on.