Temp Halt gets overturned?
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
It seems all too common these days that paraphrasing misleads and distorts the truth. The article for which you gave a link states : [Robart's] asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. But that is not the question Robart's asked. The reason we know this is because the actual exchange was later televised on network TV. The slate article I gave a link to has the actual exchange correct, word for word. There is quite a difference!
Last edited:
ah..Obama obeyed the ruling of United States v. Texas. What are you talking about?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-who-will-decide-fate-trumps-immigration-ban
Appears the ban will stand for now. Two Liberals and one Bush Republican.... not good...
all the way to the Supreme Court. fuck. This is bullshit. They call this "justice" in America. Fucked up man. Basically, legal lying. With a robe and gavel.
Appears the ban will stand for now. Two Liberals and one Bush Republican.... not good...
all the way to the Supreme Court. fuck. This is bullshit. They call this "justice" in America. Fucked up man. Basically, legal lying. With a robe and gavel.
yer I know, American "justice" bullshit did the same thing to an Obama order. Oh wait - he lost.
Not to worry, if the state loses this time and Der Groepenfuehrer wins, those gavel robe wearing legal lying fks can be your superheroes once again.
The judicial difference between a Clinton and a Trump.
When it's a Clinton, the only thing that matters is the minute letter of the law. They set up a foundation that's meant to be a pay for access to the federal gov't, enrich the Clintons and their cronies, and support liberal initiatives. But the only thing that matters to our legal system is that it was set up legally as a charity. It's like getting off crimes by pointing out ' it depends on what the meaning of is is'.
The Clintons have been doing this and getting away with it for their entire lives.
But for Trump, it's a whole different story. This law was set up so that it affects more than just muslims, and it doesn't effect more than a fraction of all muslims. And Obama picked out the countries! But this letter of the law stuff means less than nothing when it's a Trump and not a Clinton. Now it's time to get down to the spirit of the law. By all accounts I read, the judges are focused like a laser on one thing. Is Trump "REALLY" just trying to prevent muslims from coming into the country? And of course the spirit of the law is to prevent muslim jihadis from coming in and going all allah akbar on Americans. So they're probably going to call this law uncon. But the supreme court will get a try and we'll see what happens there.
Oh, to be a Clinton and to be able to get by with murder by claiming a legal technicality. The nineth circuit will make sure that Trump doesn't get to use those tactics.
When it's a Clinton, the only thing that matters is the minute letter of the law. They set up a foundation that's meant to be a pay for access to the federal gov't, enrich the Clintons and their cronies, and support liberal initiatives. But the only thing that matters to our legal system is that it was set up legally as a charity. It's like getting off crimes by pointing out ' it depends on what the meaning of is is'.
The Clintons have been doing this and getting away with it for their entire lives.
But for Trump, it's a whole different story. This law was set up so that it affects more than just muslims, and it doesn't effect more than a fraction of all muslims. And Obama picked out the countries! But this letter of the law stuff means less than nothing when it's a Trump and not a Clinton. Now it's time to get down to the spirit of the law. By all accounts I read, the judges are focused like a laser on one thing. Is Trump "REALLY" just trying to prevent muslims from coming into the country? And of course the spirit of the law is to prevent muslim jihadis from coming in and going all allah akbar on Americans. So they're probably going to call this law uncon. But the supreme court will get a try and we'll see what happens there.
Oh, to be a Clinton and to be able to get by with murder by claiming a legal technicality. The nineth circuit will make sure that Trump doesn't get to use those tactics.
Back to Lincoln. According to scholars, Lincoln ignored one of chief justice Taney's orders.
Precedent for Trump.
====
Ex parte Merryman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, issued the ruling in Ex parte Merryman.
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case which arose out of the American Civil War.[1] It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself.[2] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that the authority to suspend habeas corpus lay exclusively with Congress. The Executive Branch, including the Army, failed to comply with Taney's Merryman opinion, and John Merryman remained inaccessible to the judiciary (and the civilian legal authorities generally) while Congress remained in recess. Taney filed his Merryman decision with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, but it is unclear if Taney's decision was a circuit court decision. One view, based in part on Taney's handwritten copy of his decision in Merryman, is that Taney heard the habeas action under special authority granted to federal judges by Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. According to this view, Merryman was an in-chambers decision. Due to its vague jurisdictional locus and hastened disposition, the nature of the Merryman decision remains contested to this day
Precedent for Trump.
====
Ex parte Merryman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, issued the ruling in Ex parte Merryman.
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case which arose out of the American Civil War.[1] It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself.[2] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that the authority to suspend habeas corpus lay exclusively with Congress. The Executive Branch, including the Army, failed to comply with Taney's Merryman opinion, and John Merryman remained inaccessible to the judiciary (and the civilian legal authorities generally) while Congress remained in recess. Taney filed his Merryman decision with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, but it is unclear if Taney's decision was a circuit court decision. One view, based in part on Taney's handwritten copy of his decision in Merryman, is that Taney heard the habeas action under special authority granted to federal judges by Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. According to this view, Merryman was an in-chambers decision. Due to its vague jurisdictional locus and hastened disposition, the nature of the Merryman decision remains contested to this day
That was different. It was for the children. Janet Reno cared so much for them she burnt them up.