- 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
1
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:10 am to NC_Tigah
I never realized we had so many constitutional scholars on this board. I feel honored just to be in y'all's presence.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:10 am to The Spleen
We do realize you're a liberal dicksuck.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:13 am to AUbused
quote:Or he could rewrite his order to focus on proven terrorists from those countries who have never visited the U.S. Or he could rewrite his order to focus on proven terrorists from those countries but only if they've killed Americans.
Trump could rewrite his order to focus on unvetted foreign nationals who have never visited the U.S.,
There are many things he could do in response to an unconstitutional court finding. Unfortunately, some of them set precedent for diminished Presidential authority. That should be a nonstarter.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:13 am to the808bass
quote:please explain how I'm wrong.....
You don't know wtf you are talking about.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:13 am to The Spleen
quote:
I feel honored just to be in y'all's presence.
You should be.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unfortunately, some of them set precedent for diminished Presidential authority. That should be a nonstarter.
Diminished presidential authority was needed just a few short months ago according to this whole board. Now that it could possibly happen it's a nonstarter?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:17 am to NC_Tigah
Well, it was clear they definitely didn't want to mention the law when they did this. The 9th circuit is just a group of leftist that were appointed because of Political reasons, and its hard not to believe that IMO....
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:18 am to NC_Tigah
Hold the phone!!!!!!!
You mean to tell me, that the 9th Circuit, the MOST reversed appellate court in the federal judiciary, which is notorious for its highly political and poorly supported legal rulings, ignored basic tenants of law and procedure and contorted itself to reach an unsupported political decision in affirming an unsupported political decision of the district court?
The HELL you say!
You mean to tell me, that the 9th Circuit, the MOST reversed appellate court in the federal judiciary, which is notorious for its highly political and poorly supported legal rulings, ignored basic tenants of law and procedure and contorted itself to reach an unsupported political decision in affirming an unsupported political decision of the district court?
The HELL you say!
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:19 am to udtiger
quote:
notorious for its highly political and poorly supported legal rulings,
What?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:20 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Diminished presidential authority was needed just a few short months ago according to this whole board. Now that it could possibly happen it's a nonstarter?
And if Obama had made the EO, what would the 9th's decision have been?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:22 am to sicboy
quote:
any decision he makes
disingenuous hyperbole
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:22 am to the808bass
quote:
And if Obama had made the EO, what would the 9th's decision have been?
If Obama had written the law it would have had the proper scope applied to it.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:22 am to the808bass
quote:Truck question.
And if Obama had made the EO, what would the 9th's decision have been?
If it was Obama's SO, it wouldn't have been challenged in the first place.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
No they didn't. Here is summary of what they said by poster DS: quote:
(1) The President's powers are subject to the Constitution and no act of his can violate the Constitution, even when he invokes national security; (2) Many resident immigrants have a constitutional right to be able to reenter the country; (3) A constitutional right cannot be taken away without due process of law defined as "notice and an opportunity to respond;" (4) the Executive Order took away the rights of resident immigrants to reenter the U.S. without giving them constitutional due process of law; (5) the Executive Order is NOT entirely illegal, because not everyone banned has a constitutional right to enter the United States, but it is not the Court's job to rewrite the Executive Order to make it Constitutional... for now the stay is granted to prevent continuing violations of the Constitution.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:23 am to the808bass
quote:
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.
Don't kid yourself. There was a reason this issue was brought in the specific venue to start. They knew the District Judge would rule the way they did, and then get 9th Circuit'd.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:24 am to oklahogjr
quote:
If Obama had written the law it would have had the proper scope applied to it.
Lolzy
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:24 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Basically the 9th totally ignored the law and instead pulled shite out of their arse
Lib "judges" pulling shite out of their asses? No fricking waaay.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:25 am to Damone
That's why Robart made his decision worldwide.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:25 am to oklahogjr
quote:
If Obama had written the law it would have had the proper scope applied to it.
Kinda like that law he wrote on droning American citizens without due process?
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News