- 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: Another Obama appointee blocks Trump Travel ban.. same language as 1st judge
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:29 am to a want
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:29 am to a want
quote:
Or maybe they're considering the "there shall be no religious test" constitutional thingy.
If his Order had specified ALL Muslim countries I might agree with you. But it didn't. The majority of Muslims in the world are not affected.
Like I've said many times and you proggies continue to ignore because it fricks up your narrative.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:31 am to a want
quote:
Or maybe they're considering the "there shall be no religious test" constitutional thingy.
Except for the fact that it's not in the ban.
Except for the fact that other Muslims are allowed to come in from different regions.
HEre's to Trump appointing enough judges to change the scope of the 9th and 4th.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:39 am to Jjdoc
What's the quickest that the new SCOTUS justice can get approved?
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:42 am to Centinel
quote:
the blatantly partisan response by these judges to Trumps orders is disturbing to say the least.
"I'm a judge and I think Trump really means it's a Muslim ban, so I'm going to block it." That a legal professional could utter those words, with the knowledge that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are completely unaffected by these orders, is sickening.
That's the most jarring thing to me. Like I said in the last thread, we've truly reached the point in the legal and intelligence communities where scoring points for your side is more important than national security and sovereignty. USUALLY, no matter how partisan sane folks are, they'll draw the line at the criteria.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:48 am to a want
If I were Trump I'd do the following
First, I'd compile a list of all the times over the last 40 years where a US President has temporary halted immigration from certain countries
Second, I'd have them as well as the statute giving the POTUS the legal authority to do printed on poster board
Then I would hold a press briefing where I announced the following with those posters as a back drop
A) I will ignore the stay and fire any government employee who doesn't cooperate with said order
B) let it be known that I'm tired of fricking around with childish liberal games and from now on there will be consequences, with the consequences of this childish attempt to usurp the authority of the POTUS resulting in my changing my mind about DACA and removing that program with instructions to ICE to prioritize removing people who were kind enough to let us know where we could find them to remove them as well as admitting that they are here illegally
This nonsense has to end
First, I'd compile a list of all the times over the last 40 years where a US President has temporary halted immigration from certain countries
Second, I'd have them as well as the statute giving the POTUS the legal authority to do printed on poster board
Then I would hold a press briefing where I announced the following with those posters as a back drop
A) I will ignore the stay and fire any government employee who doesn't cooperate with said order
B) let it be known that I'm tired of fricking around with childish liberal games and from now on there will be consequences, with the consequences of this childish attempt to usurp the authority of the POTUS resulting in my changing my mind about DACA and removing that program with instructions to ICE to prioritize removing people who were kind enough to let us know where we could find them to remove them as well as admitting that they are here illegally
This nonsense has to end
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:51 am to Deuces
quote:
I thought we appoint judges of the law, not fricking monarchs.
Havent you heard, your government knows what's best for you little pawn.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:54 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
That's the most jarring thing to me. Like I said in the last thread, we've truly reached the point in the legal and intelligence communities where scoring points for your side is more important than national security and sovereignty. USUALLY, no matter how partisan sane folks are, they'll draw the line at the criteria.
Agreed. The partisanship exhibited in all levels of government now is not a good thing for this country. I expect to see Congressmen and such try to score political points...it's what they do.
But when federal agencies, courts, and the federal bureaucracy as a whole starts doing it...we've gone down a rather bad path.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:55 am to Jjdoc
quote:I think this has more to do with hack partisanship than whether Obama was the one to appoint them or not.
Another Obama appointee blocks Trump Travel ban.. same language as 1st judge
But hey, then maybe this issue can eventually be settled at a higher level so then we can move on. Maybe they're actually doing it a favor in the end.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:55 am to dnm3305
progressive "logic"
"perfectly acceptable for cities and states to ignore federal law and be "sanctuary cities" that is within their right"
"Even though the law says the POTUS has the authority to ban immigrants at his discretion, that doesn't count if it's Trump"
Seriously, it's a brain disorder.
"perfectly acceptable for cities and states to ignore federal law and be "sanctuary cities" that is within their right"
"Even though the law says the POTUS has the authority to ban immigrants at his discretion, that doesn't count if it's Trump"
Seriously, it's a brain disorder.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 10:58 am to Centinel
quote:Which is a major reason I find the Trump phenomenon (not necessarily Trump himself) concerning.
But when federal agencies, courts, and the federal bureaucracy as a whole starts doing it...we've gone down a rather bad path.
The sudden acceptance, or worse preference for big government on the right shows that too few actually care about limited government, just limited government when the other side is in power.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:02 am to buckeye_vol
Trump's budget is reducing big Gov.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:03 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:They really don't seem to have a legal standing against the ban now, BUT the fact that the president has the power to do something doesn't mean that the use of it Is legal, IF it is unconstitutional.
progressive "logic"
"perfectly acceptable for cities and states to ignore federal law and be "sanctuary cities" that is within their right"
"Even though the law says the POTUS has the authority to ban immigrants at his discretion, that doesn't count if it's Trump"
Seriously, it's a brain disorder.
Again I don't see how that would apply here, but in general, the Constitution trumps any and all other legal authorities.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:05 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
The sudden acceptance, or worse preference for big government on the right shows that too few actually care about limited government, just limited government when the other side is in power.
I think this is the direct result of the weaponization of the government as a whole. When government decides winners and losers in just about every aspect of our lives, people want that massive power on their side...to hell with the bigger issue of the government having all that power and pervasiveness in our lives today.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:10 am to Jjdoc
quote:WHAT THE frick?
he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”
This judge should be hung. That's the most ignorant ruling I've ever seen.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:12 am to bhtigerfan
I've talked to a few attorneys here at work that are definitely no fan of Trump, and even they are floored by the epic shitshow of legal reasoning these judges are using.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:15 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
the fact that the president has the power to do something doesn't mean that the use of it Is legal, IF it is unconstitutional.
This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional. I realize that is a bit of a chicken/egg argument; but it is the truth. If the COTUS doesn't allow something, then Congress can't pass a law letting the POTUS do it.
And in fact , there actually ARE laws on the books which give the President almost unchecked authority that directly contradicts the COTUS. For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States. Now , this would certainly seem to contradict the 4th Amendment of the United States, but the law exists.
Here's the law, for your edification
LINK
And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things
1. The law allows the President wide latitude in banning immigrants who he , and he alone, feels are detrimental to the US. Not only does the President NOT have to prove a real danger to US exists, he doesn't even have to claim a danger exists. He merely has to feel they are a detriment to the US.
2. The law actually disallows the us government or its agencies from being sued by local jurisdictions over these laws.
3. We have not been enforcing large portions of this law for shite over the last 30 + years.
LINK
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:15 am to a want
quote:
Or maybe they're considering the "there shall be no religious test" constitutional thingy.
Time to move on to a better argument. This one is dead.
This post was edited on 3/16/17 at 11:16 am
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:16 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Cruiserhog, to judge a law based on words not IN the actual law is a disgrace to the legal profession and opens up a terrible can of worms
They aren't even based on words trump actually said, just dishonest characterizations of things he said
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:16 am to Jjdoc
quote:In some areas, sure, but it's increasing it in others--especially since the spending isn't being reduced.
Trump's budget is reducing big Gov.
But the budget, or the number of government employees is only a sample of big government. A smaller government workforce and budget wouldn't negate big government use of power.
Some agencies and departments have disproportionately greater power (or potential power) than others. The intelligence community is an example. You could probably most of government, and it still probably wouldn't offset act the big government effects of the patriot act.
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:30 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Of course. But I'm saying (and maybe we are making the same point), but one could have the legal authority to do something, but that legal authority is still constrained by the Constitution.
This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional
quote:Doesn't this refute that?
For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States.
quote:So how can he legally wiretap a citizen, when it explicitly states that they must have substantial likelihood that a citizen's communications aren't going to included? Obviously, he could lie about the likelihood, but that would be a violation of that.
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
quote:I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the legal authority, and I'm not arguing that's it's unconstitutional.
And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things
I'm just saying that every legal authority is constrained by the Constitution, even when it's sole authority. Again, maybe we're on the same page, but when the initial ban was instituted, some people seem to think that a sole authority was somehow immune from the Constitution.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News