- 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: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:34 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:34 am to ShortyRob
quote:
It's literally what they are TRAINED to do in a courtroom.
Then scream like a little girl when someone ELSE does it....
It's almost like there's a word for that.....
0
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:36 am to udtiger
quote:Call Tigar a liberal activist, and I will usually agree with you.
(You are) correct; however, Strannix is also correct because in the absence of this judge's clear activism and bias, he would not have given any weight to the clear pretextual "showing" of impact beyond the 9th's jurisdictional limits and the limitations would still be in place.
Assert that he “defied” the 9th, and I will call you an idiot. The 9th sent him an engraved invitation to
do EXACTLY what he did.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:37 am to ShortyRob
Hell. It used to be that one of the reasons shite got to the Supreme Court was because of conflicting local rulings.
Alas, NOW, the local guys just make NATIONAL rulings because, well, we can create a retarded non-related XH analogy.
This is the problem with lawyers. They take the REALITY that you can write 7 million page legislation to effectively render ALL legislation meaningless.
Alas, NOW, the local guys just make NATIONAL rulings because, well, we can create a retarded non-related XH analogy.
This is the problem with lawyers. They take the REALITY that you can write 7 million page legislation to effectively render ALL legislation meaningless.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Assert that he “defied” the 9th, and I will call you an idiot. The 9th sent him an engraved invitation to
do EXACTLY what he did.
Sophistry
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:But that is not remotely what happened.
If inferior courts can just decide now that they can overrule superior rulings repeatedly.......and the MERITS don't matter, then, we have no legal system.
Because the inferior guy can just issue one meritless ruling after another forever. For all practical purposes, because he can be seen FASTER than the superior court can, he then becomes MORE powerful than the superior court.
Are you really going to sit here and pretend you don't get that?
The Ninth Circuit told him that he missed something (wink, wink) because there was no evidence (wink, wink) at this time (wink, wink) of point X (wink, wink). We must overrule you, for now (wink, wink).
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The Ninth Circuit told him that he missed something (wink, wink) because there was no evidence (wink, wink) at this time (wink, wink) of point X (wink, wink). We must overrule you, for now (wink, wink).
This STILL doesn't solve the absurdity of lower levels of govt overruling higher levels of govt NATIONALLY.
And if your characterization is accurate, then frankly, he, and the winkers need to be shot
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:44 am to ShortyRob
quote:You are still arguing policy, with someone who still agrees with you.
This STILL doesn't solve the absurdity of lower levels of govt overruling higher levels of govt NATIONALLY.
And if your characterization is accurate, then frankly, he, and the winkers need to be shot
quote:
I see merit in amending the jurisdictional statutes in a way to mandate that injunctive suits against the federal government and seeking relief beyond a single Division, District or Circuit must be filed in a specific court.
For instance, a case with an effect crossing Division boundaries in the same District might be filed the the Principal court in that District, a case with an effect crossing District lines in the same State might be filed in a central District and Division of that State, a case with an effect crossing State lines in the same Circuit might be filed in the District an Division where that Circuit has its HQ, and a case with multi-Circuit or national scope might be filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia).
But that simply is NOT the law at this time
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 9:47 am
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:And, again, I'm pointing out that under no rational understanding can anyone think that inferior levels of govt overruling superior levels is POLICY.
You are still arguing policy, with someone who still agrees with you.
And, if you think it is, you then have to overcome my point that there is NO POLICY ONE COULD WRITE that would overcome them doing it. They can still just say "frick it" and rule again.
No one designed a system where snuffy in San Fran suddenly has authority over the Governor of Florida. NO ONE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
It simply exists in legalese bull shite that renders the law irrelevant.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I see merit in amending the jurisdictional statutes in a way to mandate that injunctive suits against the federal government and seeking relief beyond a single Division, District or Circuit must be filed in a specific court.
And, some court will rule this is unconstitutional. Blammo. Back to square one.
The fact is, what they are doing now is unconstitutional now. And, everyone knows it.
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 9:50 am
Posted on 9/10/19 at 10:02 am to ShortyRob
quote:How? Please be specific. I provide Article III for convenience
The fact is, what they are doing now is unconstitutional now. And, everyone knows it.
quote:
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 10:08 am to AggieHank86
quote:You see, this is what I mean.
How? Please be specific. I provide Article III for convenience
Lawyers and liberals are effectively arguing that because the constitution isn't 7 million pages long accounting for all possibilities, that everything is on the table.
NO ONE designed a tiered system with the idea that lower tiers could over rule higher tiers.
That no one at the time thought, "well, ya know, frickers in 200 or so years are going to pretend that's not obvious" is irrelevant to me.
They designed a tiered system. ALL intelligent people know what a tiered system means.
Using the approach you are asking for, there's no sense in even attempting to write a constitution or a law ever again. Because, the law can simply be ignored if it doesn't cover about 7 million pages and account for everything some scheister might try to do..........ever
Posted on 9/10/19 at 10:35 am to ShortyRob
quote:
All that matters is how esoteric you can make your argument.
There's a lot of stuff you can find hiding in emanations and penumbras.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 10:41 am to Flats
I've said millions of times that the entire point of writing a constitution is that the people it applies to be able to understand it largely on their own.
If the only way to understand the constitution is to be a "constitutional scholar", then you don't really have a constitution.
At that point, there's no REAL difference between having one and not having one.
I've said a hundred times on this board that the reality is, if the United States did not have a constitution AT ALL, I still can't think of any Supreme or Circuit Court decisions in the last 50 years that would have been decided differently.
They wouldn't have been able to hang their hat on fake constitutional reasoning, but, their decisions would have ALL been the same.
Hence, we don't really even have a constitution anymore.
If the only way to understand the constitution is to be a "constitutional scholar", then you don't really have a constitution.
At that point, there's no REAL difference between having one and not having one.
I've said a hundred times on this board that the reality is, if the United States did not have a constitution AT ALL, I still can't think of any Supreme or Circuit Court decisions in the last 50 years that would have been decided differently.
They wouldn't have been able to hang their hat on fake constitutional reasoning, but, their decisions would have ALL been the same.
Hence, we don't really even have a constitution anymore.
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 10:42 am
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:21 am to ShortyRob
Your argument completely ignores article II section 1.
That section gives Congress the right to establish the lower courts, which it has done. As to injunctive relief against the federal government, it is not doing a very good job, but that has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with statutes.
We need to fix the statutes, rather than whining that the lower courts are behaving unconstitutionally. The constitution does not Address injunctive relief against the federal government. As such, that is a matter governed by statute.
That section gives Congress the right to establish the lower courts, which it has done. As to injunctive relief against the federal government, it is not doing a very good job, but that has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with statutes.
We need to fix the statutes, rather than whining that the lower courts are behaving unconstitutionally. The constitution does not Address injunctive relief against the federal government. As such, that is a matter governed by statute.
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 11:24 am
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
We need to fix the statutes
You can't
That's my point
I don't mean you can't pass them
I mean that passing them wouldn't matter
This post was edited on 9/10/19 at 11:24 am
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
That section gives Congress the right to establish the lower courts, which it has done
Also
What does this have to do whatsoever with my points regarding a tiered system
Answer. Nothing
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:32 am to ShortyRob
The constitution simply says that the Congress can establish a “tiered system.” The nature of that tiered system, and even the nature of the tiers and the relationships between them, is a matter totally left to Congress.
If the system as it exist is not working (which I agree), you fix it… with statutes. The constitution is simply not involved. It provides only a broad framework with the details to be “filled in“ by Congress.
If the system as it exist is not working (which I agree), you fix it… with statutes. The constitution is simply not involved. It provides only a broad framework with the details to be “filled in“ by Congress.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The constitution simply says that the Congress can establish a “tiered system.” The nature of that tiered system, and even the nature of the tiers and the relationships between them, is a matter totally left to Congress
This is because rational people know what tiered means and no one wants a 5000 pages Constitution.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 11:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The constitution simply says that the Congress can establish a “tiered system.” The nature of that tiered system, and even the nature of the tiers and the relationships between them, is a matter totally left to Congress.
I should add that the constitution laid out the branches as co-equal and even spelled out how the congress can overcome an executive decision with a 2/3 vote.
No one in their right fricking minds thinks that the SAME people who wrote that then wrote, "but hey, with only 51% of their vote, they can create a lower court that can override the executive!
Again, lawyers and supposed "constitutional scholars" have basically already repealed the entire constitution. The document is completely meaningless because now, it ONLY means what someone can torture it to mean.
If you were creating a government tomorrow, there's no rule that says it MUST have a constitution. If you choose to have one, it isn't FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S use, it's for the PEOPLE'S use.
If it is indecipherable to THE PEOPLE and nothing means what it says, then don't waste your time writing one.
Posted on 9/10/19 at 12:05 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Or maybe it means that the matter was simply left to Congress.
This is because rational people know what tiered means and no one wants a 5000 pages Constitution.
Page 8 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News