- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: 9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
What if the president issued an EO that all immigrants from majority white countries had to go live in a camp. Whould that be constitutional?
Holy straw man.
1
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am to the808bass
quote:
The courts overstated the executive's position to pretend that they're the rational ones, IMO.
That's probably fair, but when the government doesn't even come with a coherent argument it's kind of hard to let them win.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:48 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
That's ridiculous of course they are subject to judicial review.
Not normally. I would agree that they could be subject to judicial review. But the court needs to provide a clearer basis for their review than "some professors had some hardship getting to the state university."
If the executive has to submit intelligence data to the court to justify a security decision with regards to an immigration question, we've strayed pretty far into the weeds. What special knowledge do the judges have to accurately evaluate intelligence data? I'd submit they have almost none. They think they're so wise that they would make the right decision? No.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:49 am to rmc
quote:
Holy straw man.
It's just an example. The president doesn't have unlimited power is the point.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:49 am to the808bass
quote:
The WH didn't try to. They asserted that these decisions aren't subject to judicial review. And normally they wouldn't be. It's just that the 9th and the whackaninny in Washington decided Trump is an existential threat to the country and that they therefore do have review over security decisions with respect to immigration.
This is why people faulting the WH strategy are missing the boat, I think there is probably a very deliberate attempt here to not acknowledge such a burden.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:49 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
That's probably fair, but when the government doesn't even come with a coherent argument it's kind of hard to let them win.
I agree. And National Review pointed out the issue with making this EO without your legal team in place to defend it.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:50 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Courts do not have unlimited judicial review on the other branches of government. Read the constitution.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:50 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
quote:
Holy straw man.
It's just an example. The president doesn't have unlimited power is the point.
No doubt. But its not really analogous.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:50 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
It's just an example. The president doesn't have unlimited power is the point.
Correct. So why hasn't the court intervened with the restrictions previous Presidents put upon immigration?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:50 am to sicboy
quote:
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
Thats just dumb.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:51 am to BigPerm30
quote:I keep seeing this parroted. Yes, they are overturned in the Supreme Court at that rate, currently. That's usually why cases end up in the Supreme Court. Their decisions are not overturned 80% of the time.
they are overturned on a 80% clip.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:52 am to JuiceTerry
And to complete your thought for you, is this one headed to SCOTUS?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:53 am to NC_Tigah
--US v. Arizona:
Arizona attempts to involve itself in immigration matters because it is harmful to its economy and burden on its residents.
Fedgov judicial system tell them stay out, it is the exclusive power and jurisdiction of Fedgov. You have no standing.
--Washington v. US
Washington demands standing says that Fedgov must butt out and stop interfering with its residents because it is harmful to their economy and a burden to their residents.
Fedgov judicial system tells Fedgov you stay out, you don't have that kind of authority.
ONCE AGAIN, the left shows that it only seeks the result it wants first, and secondly works itself into a complicated frenzy to justify it.
THE RULE OF LEFT IS:
THERE ARE NO RULES BUT THE ONES THAT GIVE US GOOD FEELS.
Arizona attempts to involve itself in immigration matters because it is harmful to its economy and burden on its residents.
Fedgov judicial system tell them stay out, it is the exclusive power and jurisdiction of Fedgov. You have no standing.
--Washington v. US
Washington demands standing says that Fedgov must butt out and stop interfering with its residents because it is harmful to their economy and a burden to their residents.
Fedgov judicial system tells Fedgov you stay out, you don't have that kind of authority.
ONCE AGAIN, the left shows that it only seeks the result it wants first, and secondly works itself into a complicated frenzy to justify it.
THE RULE OF LEFT IS:
THERE ARE NO RULES BUT THE ONES THAT GIVE US GOOD FEELS.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:53 am to NIH
quote:
Courts do not have unlimited judicial review on the other branches of government.
No but when constitutional rights are allegedly being violated they have essentially unlimited power to provide a remedy. I don't like it but the 14th amendment makes that pretty clear.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:53 am to NIH
Congress authorized him to make findings. They didn't impose a standard, such as reasonableness. He is Arthur height of his power here. But I think the court has long since imposed a standard in such situations. I can't remember what it is, though.
Question should be whether they analyzed that issue.
Question should be whether they analyzed that issue.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:54 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
they are overturned on a 80% clip.
quote:Are you bi-polar?
Yes, they are overturned in the Supreme Court at that rate, currently.
Their decisions are not overturned 80% of the time.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:54 am to the808bass
quote:
. Correct. So why hasn't the court intervened with the restrictions previous Presidents put upon immigration?
It has!
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:54 am to the808bass
The WH really doomed this with poor drafting and a poor rollout.
We will see what the SCOTUS does on appeal of the TRO. Trump will easily win on the merits though.
We will see what the SCOTUS does on appeal of the TRO. Trump will easily win on the merits though.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:56 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
The problems he doesn't have to. The statute is clear on that.
It boggles the mind that you could look directly at that statute and read that the President has autocratic absolute unchecked power. The President has to make a finding that entry of the class of aliens would be detrimental to the United States. That exercise of discretion is afforded great deference, but the President must still put forward a rational basis for the determination.
Rather than putting forward anything, the President asserted that he has unlimited power to do whatever he wants whenever he wants and that the judiciary has absolutely no power or authority to review it.
The way Trump framed the issue, he would either emerge as a king, or he would lose. That was the gamble he took. He lost. This will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. If it is, it won't be overturned.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 7:57 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 7:56 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
What if the president issued an EO that all immigrants from majority white countries had to go live in a camp. Whould that be constitutional?
It would be both unconstitutional and illegal. The law gives the POTUS clear authority to say who can and cannot enter the US but it does not give him the authority to put them in camps.
Good thing the EO didn't say anything about putting anyone into camps.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News