- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do judges just get to ignore the law and make it up as they go now?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:50 pm to TBoy
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:50 pm to TBoy
quote:
It is Trump who is not following the law. Bitch and moan all you want but this is the fact.
fricking bullshite
No one has a mother fricking right to fricking come here
We dont have to fricking let anyone in
Sorry that you fricking think the borders should be wide fricking open but thats not how it fricking works
1
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2. applying this law in a way to be discriminatory by religion may be unconstitutional
So you are saying that Iranians are protected by the constitution? Where did you go to law school?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:57 pm to goldennugget
Where in this image does it say the executive has to prove why a class of persons may be detrimental
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:02 pm to Champagne
quote:
confirmed 99-0 in the Senate.
quote:
I knew that some idiot would point this out as though I were entirely ignorant of this fact. I'm very well aware of which POTUS appointed this judge.
The Bushs are and have always been Globalist "cross the aisle and make friends with the Dems" kind of people. That's how you get a Bush appointed liberal judge -- the Bushs are damn near liberals themselves.
Are you of the mind that the Bush people are all hard-core committed constitutional conservatives that would never appoint a liberal judge to the bench in order to make nice with Democrats? Is that your frame of mind?
That senate was majority Republican.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:26 pm to kilo
quote:
Except for the fact he didn't ban Muslims
In the literal sense, he absolutely did ban Muslims. The problem for him is that when you say that you're in favor of a Muslim ban, and an EO travel ban affects mostly Muslims by and large, it's a little difficult for him to now dispute the spirit of his action.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:48 pm to Darth_Vader
Always have.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:55 pm to goldennugget
quote:I don't see what part of that code isn't crystal clear. The President has latitude in this situation.
Where in this image does it say the executive has to prove why a class of persons may be detrimental
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ill never understand how it is unconstitutional to deny immigration based off of any criteria we deem necessary. It doesn't say this anywhere in the constitution
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:21 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This can't be shown
It can when you have statements from Rudy saying almost exactly that, along with Trump's own statements that Christians will get preferential treatment.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 3:18 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Where in this image does it say the executive has to prove why a class of persons may be detrimental
It says it in the part where it says "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The problem is that you don't want to see it, but it is right there.
This law does not give the president unchecked power to allow or deny entry anytime he fricking well pleases. That isn't what the law says. It says, and I will quote it again, "deterimental to the interests of the United States." If the president is going to close the borders based upon this law, he must be able to explain why the entry of this class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. If he can't explain why he reached this conclusion, or if the explanation forwarded is not rational and related to some actual circumstance, he is abusing his discretion in preventing the entry.
In other words, he can't just do anything he wants. He isn't our emperor.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 3:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2 issues
1. i don't think that the EO would be protected by this with respect to visa holders
2. applying this law in a way to be discriminatory by religion may be unconstitutional
Trump's team wrote a bad EO and led to these challenges (and likely losses)
1. The EO does not apply to visa or green card holders.
2. The law does not discriminate by religion. All arguments to the contrary require a leap from what the EO actually says.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:53 pm to Undertow
quote:
The EO does not apply to visa or green card holders
Sorry but the order must apply to visa holders because people from the middle east cannot enter without a visa issued in advance. No middle eastern countries are in the visa waiver program. Never have been. This absolutely applies to visa holders, or it does nothing at all.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:57 pm to Sayre
How does who appointed the judge matter? People change. That judge is a proven liberal activist.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:08 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Ill never understand how it is unconstitutional to deny immigration based off of any criteria we deem necessary. It doesn't say this anywhere in the Constitution
But it does say it in the 1965 Hart-Cellar act: "...No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence..."
There have also been various court decisions in the same vein. 8 US 1182(f) does not give the president complete control to arbitrarily deny access to whomever he wants, as many on this board seem to believe. The statute has been restricted many times since its enactment.
LINK to Hart-Cellar act
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2. applying this law in a way to be discriminatory by religion may be unconstitutional
Did the actual EO reference religion? If so they are idiots
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:14 pm to Tigereye10005
And that is totally bullshite in this case. If that were extrapolated to cover broad classes or people or entire countries then our entire immigration and refugee program would be in violation of it.
We already give preferences and assign quotas to people based on their country of origin.
That law regards discrimination on individuals, not broad based immigration restriction.
This will be overturned and it will be simple and quick.
We already give preferences and assign quotas to people based on their country of origin.
That law regards discrimination on individuals, not broad based immigration restriction.
This will be overturned and it will be simple and quick.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:22 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Refugees don't come here under the same immigrant-visa system as others, so it's not quite the same.
The Hart-Cellar act is just one of many examples of where 8 us 1182 has been restricted since it was enacted in 1952. It's not total bull shite in this case, as it directly relates to the EO in question. That, alone may not be enough to prove this EO is unconstitutional, but it is certainly enough to be an example that 1182(f) does not give the president as much broad power as people on this board seem to think it does.
The Hart-Cellar act is just one of many examples of where 8 us 1182 has been restricted since it was enacted in 1952. It's not total bull shite in this case, as it directly relates to the EO in question. That, alone may not be enough to prove this EO is unconstitutional, but it is certainly enough to be an example that 1182(f) does not give the president as much broad power as people on this board seem to think it does.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:26 pm to Tigereye10005
I don't believe the TRO claimed it was unconstitutional. Just that it was a hardship on Washington.
Could be wrong. I haven't read it closely because it doesn't matter. It has been widely panned and called sophomoric by legal publications.
Could be wrong. I haven't read it closely because it doesn't matter. It has been widely panned and called sophomoric by legal publications.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:35 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
I think you're right that the TRO did not state that the EO is unconstitutional. However, the TRO was granted on the assumption that litigation is ongoing and a decision on its constitutionality will be made. (Hopefully soon)
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News