Temp Halt gets overturned?

[Frederick Foresight]

Let me guess, the obscure judge is in his appointed position FOR LIFE?

Translation: no skin in the game.

I think the odds are better than a lottery ticket that he has a price to pay.

You really think judges take the matter of reversible error lightly?

And why is he "obscure?" Because he doesn't have his own TV show? The man's a federal judge. You're the one who's obscure.

 

[CaptainObvious]

You really think judges take the matter of reversible error lightly?

I think they're indifferent. Removing a judge from the bench is near impossible, and it should be difficult, but these people are pretty much locked in. Having a ruling overturned is just part of the game, like a defense attorney knowingly using the system to suppress evidence that will convict their client whom they know is guilty. It's how things work and that's how they sleep at night.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I think they're indifferent.

I don't think that anyone who takes any pride in his work would be indifferent. Attorneys may be advocates, bordering on the mercenary, but the buck stops with the judge. Unless the guy's losing his mind, I'm pretty confident he takes his work seriously.

You're beyond skeptical. You've gone full cynic.

 

[stu]

Aha. Then all we need is one obscure judge to put a stay on the use of Federal Reserve Notes, which are un-Constitutional.

And besides, the duly ELECTED President is abiding by the political, and/or mal-informed opinion of a NON JURY, NON QUORUM of anything...until it is overturned. Or at least they are going through the motions of abiding by it.

At least the President's process is transparent, unlike other Presidents we've known.

Part of that process is to put heat on over-reachers, so they have skin in the game.

If it comes out the stay was entirely over-reached, the judge may have a price to pay.

That's fine and is exactly my point . The duly elected president is obliged to regard the judiciary and due process. The equal and separate branches working as the Constitution requires.

The judge has every right to test, the president has every right to resist.

Oh and if you want to get a judge to agree legal tender is un-Constitutional good luck with that. If you want to get a judge to agree the banning of everyone from certain countries -including US nationals- is un-Constitutional, you'll have a far better legal and Constitutional grounding.

 

[Good1]

You really think judges take the matter of reversible error lightly?

And why is he "obscure?" Because he doesn't have his own TV show? The man's a federal judge. You're the one who's obscure.

Of course i'm obscure, but i'm not a judge, and i'm not staying a higher elected official's move to protect national security.

And he is obscure if he was appointed, relative to an elected official, the only elected official at a national level.

It's a lot like having to abide by remnants of the Bush junior cabinet.

ob·scure
əbˈskyo͝or/

1. 1.
   not discovered or known about; uncertain.
   "his origins and parentage are obscure"
   synonyms: unclear, uncertain, unknown, in doubt, doubtful, dubious, mysterious, hazy, vague, indeterminate, concealed, hidden
   "the truth is that many aspects of a war's outcome remain obscure for years"
2. 1.
   keep from being seen; conceal.
   "gray clouds obscure the sun"
   synonyms: hide, conceal, cover, veil, shroud, screen, mask, cloak, cast a shadow over, shadow, block (out), obliterate, eclipse, darken; More

 

[CaptainObvious]

I don't think that anyone who takes any pride in his work would be indifferent. Attorneys may be advocates, bordering on the mercenary, but the buck stops with the judge. Unless the guy's losing his mind, I'm pretty confident he takes his work seriously.

You're beyond skeptical. You've gone full cynic.

When it comes to anything political, yes I have become 100 percent the cynic, and politics has most certainly corrupted the legal system. Education is long gone for the most part, and science is in steady decline. Politics destroys nearly everything it touches.

 

[Good1]

That's fine and is exactly my point . The duly elected president is obliged to regard the judiciary and due process. The equal and separate branches working as the Constitution requires.

The judge has every right to test, the president has every right to resist.

Oh and if you want to get a judge to agree legal tender is un-Constitutional good luck with that. If you want to get a judge to agree the banning of everyone from certain countries -including US nationals- is un-Constitutional, you'll have a far better legal and Constitutional grounding.

As for the balance of powers, i was hoping you'd tell me something i didn't know.

As for the constitutionality of Fed Reserve Notes versus immigration, good thing you are not the judge of these matters.

 

[stu]

good thing you are not the judge of these matters.

because you'd be in jail

 

[fhl]

Talk about projection...

 

[OddTrader]

February 6 2017


Donald Trump's showdown with America's courts on the horizon

Paul McGeough


http://www.theage.com.au/world/dona...as-courts-on-the-horizon-20170205-gu66xb.html

The history of presidents tangling with the court shows that they'll do it but only up to a point. Nixon, Clinton and Obama all spoke their minds – but in the end they did as they were told.

And the reason lies in an observation by then-chief justice Warren Burger, who wrote in United States v Nixon that the whole American construct of checks and balances survives because it was "the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is".