re: The U.S. Supreme Court blocks President Trump from deporting Venezuelan Aliens

quote:

---

But when half the country believes that if you don't like what the law says you simply pretend it says something else then you're not really a country of laws in the first place.

---

So in your society where judicial review doesn't exist, how do we deal with the flaws of language in a society based on laws written with that flawed language? More importantly, how can you build a legal system for some form of permanence for a society that's constantly changing (including language) with societal and technological developments that could never have been intended at the original writing (what my contracts professor used to call the "Pink Elephant problem"), without some form of judicial review?

quote:

---

Now I am sure some a-hole lawyer will step in here and pretend like there's no such thing as plain language. Which is such a fricking stupid argument because if that thought process was really true communication wouldn't even be possible. How would communication even work if we didn't have General agreements upon what the words mean?

---

This is an admitted argument from authority, but lawyers who have litigated cases understand how often this conflict arises, and I don't think people who are outside of that (there are some non-legal avenues to deal with this, mind you) understand how common this is.

A lot of our communication is not precise in any way. Ever played a game of Telephone?

If you want to have your mind blown, a lot of our memories are also not precise in any way, which doesn't affect an academic discussion like this thread, but in terms of litigation makes it incredibly difficult (and more procedural rules have to be made to account for this).

quote:

---

The order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that gives the president the power to detain or remove citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if Congress declares war or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”

---

How can anyone argue with the above if the criteria are met?

SCOTUS punted plain and simple.

quote:

---

A lot of our communication is not precise in any way. Ever played a game of Telephone?

---

You should be ashamed of this argument because it doesn't even address the subject at hand. Telephone is a test of a people's ability to repeat it accurately over time. But if at the end of the telephone game you brought everybody in the room and had the first person repeat what he said they would all fricking understand it! Every last one of them good God you call yourself a lawyer? If you've ever used that one in court put it back in your pocket. People will laugh at you

quote:

---

Immigration is a LOGISTICS problem. We need more capacity: detention centers, Immigration judges, etc. I can't imagine a lawyer saying "no, don't do that."

---

Lol. No it’s not. It’s a political will problem. And the politicians don’t have the will to address it.

With each of your proposed solutions above: detention centers and immigration judges, there would be 18 lawyers telling you what you could and couldn’t do. And delay is inaction.

quote:

---

You still didn't answer the question. You're just arguing the language I used.

---

If that wasn’t allowed, you would cease to exist on this forum.

quote:

---

Telephone is a test of a people's ability to repeat it accurately over time.

---

Based on the input of language they receive.

Note: I specifically said "communication"

quote:

---

I just don't see an alternative to the legal system for regulating behavior.

---

The law doesn’t regulate behavior here.

Does a legal system have to exist is a separate question. In an ordered society of any size, probably yes.

quote:

---

Because very few of them want to promote authoritarianism and reject our principles of limited government.

---

You’re not enough of a retard to believe this. This post of yours wasn’t about morals.

quote:

---

You’re not enough of a retard to believe this.

---

There's self interest involved. They're much more likely to lose their next election by doing so.

quote:

---

Based on the input of language they receive.

Note: I specifically said "communication

---

At this point I have to assume you're faking stupidity.

Every last soul in the telephone game would agree upon the language if they all listen to it at the same time. So unless we're talking about a legal system where they tell somebody about the law but never write it down your point is fricking retarded