Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(12-02-2017 11:25 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  What gets me is, with the Muslim ban you're just banning people on the basis that they might commit crimes. That's clearly retarded.

Populists never fail to succumb to nationalistic fears.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 02:35 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
From what I've read Trump is planning on tweaking the Executive Order to make it legal even by the standards of the 9nth circuit to make it happen. Personally, I think this is a perfect example of why we need to reign in the power of the presidency. We saw what I consider abuses of power like this from W., Barry, and now the Angry Orange

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
13-02-2017, 03:16 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 02:35 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  From what I've read Trump is planning on tweaking the Executive Order to make it legal even by the standards of the 9nth circuit to make it happen. Personally, I think this is a perfect example of why we need to reign in the power of the presidency. We saw what I consider abuses of power like this from W., Barry, and now the Angry Orange

First he had to be talked off the ledge of taking it to the Supreme Court out of spite. (A 4-4 split would leave the 9th's ruling in place.) I'd take the time to redo it proper, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, and shop it in the 5th district. Then if the Supreme Court splits 4-4 the ban would stay in place.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
13-02-2017, 03:55 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 03:16 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-02-2017 02:35 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  From what I've read Trump is planning on tweaking the Executive Order to make it legal even by the standards of the 9nth circuit to make it happen. Personally, I think this is a perfect example of why we need to reign in the power of the presidency. We saw what I consider abuses of power like this from W., Barry, and now the Angry Orange

First he had to be talked off the ledge of taking it to the Supreme Court out of spite. (A 4-4 split would leave the 9th's ruling in place.) I'd take the time to redo it proper, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, and shop it in the 5th district. Then if the Supreme Court splits 4-4 the ban would stay in place.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you know what you are talking about more than me because I don't fully understand what the fuck you just said, but at some point the Supreme Court will have 9 members again. And this is where I say the Republicans seriously fucked up our system through underhanded bullshit. We shouldn't have to have ties anyway. If the Democrats want to be thing 'bigger man' they fuck themselves, but otherwise they fuck us all. Can the Republicans actually force a confirmation for a justice through with this small of a majority? Can we wait until another of these geriatric fuckers kicks the bucket to prevent ties? I know that the ties aren't important in deciding this considering the decision at the moment, and I just went full-tangent, but fuck it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
13-02-2017, 05:15 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 03:55 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Can the Republicans actually force a confirmation for a justice through with this small of a majority?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 10:43 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(13-02-2017 03:55 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Can the Republicans actually force a confirmation for a justice through with this small of a majority?

Yes.

They won't have to go nuclear. Dude's credentials are impeccable. They'll be at least 8 dems that vote to confirm him.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-02-2017, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 11:24 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 10:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-02-2017 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yes.

They won't have to go nuclear. Dude's credentials are impeccable. They'll be at least 8 dems that vote to confirm him.

And he'll be fucking us over with his politically and religiously motivated bullshit for decades to come. They'll gloss over his quite frankly disqualifying level of prejudicial bias with his credentials, and act like one makes up for the other. We want impartial judges with a respect for jurisprudence and stare decisis, and he has neither. He's a constitutional originalist, which in any other field besides law would simply be called 'archaic thinking'; or ''I liked it better originally, back when woman and blacks couldn't vote'.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 11:25 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 11:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-02-2017 10:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  They won't have to go nuclear. Dude's credentials are impeccable. They'll be at least 8 dems that vote to confirm him.

And he'll be fucking us over with his politically and religiously motivated bullshit for decades to come. They'll gloss over his quite frankly disqualifying level of prejudicial bias with his credentials, and act like one makes up for the other. We want impartial judges with a respect for jurisprudence and stare decisis, and he has neither. He's a constitutional originalist, which in any other field besides law would simply be called 'archaic thinking'; or ''I liked it better back when originally woman and blacks couldn't vote'.

But so was Scalia who don't forget whoever will be replacing. I'm worried about the next justices he'll might get to pick.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-02-2017, 11:31 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 11:25 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(13-02-2017 11:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And he'll be fucking us over with his politically and religiously motivated bullshit for decades to come. They'll gloss over his quite frankly disqualifying level of prejudicial bias with his credentials, and act like one makes up for the other. We want impartial judges with a respect for jurisprudence and stare decisis, and he has neither. He's a constitutional originalist, which in any other field besides law would simply be called 'archaic thinking'; or ''I liked it better back when originally woman and blacks couldn't vote'.

But so was Scalia who don't forget whoever will be replacing. I'm worried about the next justices he'll might get to pick.

Well mid terms are in two years, and the Republicans have set a precedent that cock-blocking appointments for the last quarter of a presidency is a-okay; so we only have to hope Ginsberg can hold out for another 3 years.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-02-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(13-02-2017 11:20 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  He's a constitutional originalist, which in any other field besides law would simply be called 'archaic thinking'; or ''I liked it better originally, back when woman and blacks couldn't vote'.

Shocking Uh...no, that's not what that means. A Constitutional Originalist would not look at the 13th amendment and say "Clearly they didn't REALLY mean 'free'". It's not "archaic thinking". It's attempting to understand the law as it was intended by the lawmakers. That's it. Get a grip dude.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: