Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2017, 12:41 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
Trump travel ban hit by new legal setback

From the article:
Quote:A US district judge in Virginia has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order barring entry from seven countries is unconstitutional.

Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, asserting that the campaign vow to institute a "Muslim ban" violated the First Amendment.

The Monday ruling is significant, as the judge ruled that religious bias is at the heart of Mr Trump's ban.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heath_Tierney's post
14-02-2017, 12:57 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(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.

It still worries me, though, because what the lawmakers intended 150 or 200 years ago may or may not apply to today's society and culture. You really have to take that into consideration as well, and I'm not sure the originalists do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
14-02-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 12:57 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

It still worries me, though, because what the lawmakers intended 150 or 200 years ago may or may not apply to today's society and culture. You really have to take that into consideration as well, and I'm not sure the originalists do.

Sure, but that's it's only up to SCOTUS to rule what is and isn't legal. If you want to change law to reflect something that applies today, but didn't used to, there is a proper place to do that. It's not with the SCOTUS.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 02:51 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 02:39 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 12:57 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It still worries me, though, because what the lawmakers intended 150 or 200 years ago may or may not apply to today's society and culture. You really have to take that into consideration as well, and I'm not sure the originalists do.

Sure, but that's it's only up to SCOTUS to rule what is and isn't legal. If you want to change law to reflect something that applies today, but didn't used to, there is a proper place to do that. It's not with the SCOTUS.

The court can also set precedent in the process changing what is and isn't legal. The most recent one that immediately comes to mind is the ruling on gay marriage.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 03:00 PM
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.

He doesn't strike me as being nearly the worst candidate that The Shitgibbon could have tapped, not by a long shot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 03:25 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 02:51 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 02:39 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Sure, but that's it's only up to SCOTUS to rule what is and isn't legal. If you want to change law to reflect something that applies today, but didn't used to, there is a proper place to do that. It's not with the SCOTUS.

The court can also set precedent in the process changing what is and isn't legal. The most recent one that immediately comes to mind is the ruling on gay marriage.

Yes, this is perfect example of a power grab.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 03:39 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 03:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 02:51 PM)tomilay Wrote:  The court can also set precedent in the process changing what is and isn't legal. The most recent one that immediately comes to mind is the ruling on gay marriage.

Yes, this is perfect example of a power grab.

In a common law jurisdiction, of which the US is one, it is not.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
14-02-2017, 11:49 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 03:39 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 03:25 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yes, this is perfect example of a power grab.

In a common law jurisdiction, of which the US is one, it is not.

There is supposed to be a reason why why have a Legislative, Executive and Judicial branch of government. Democrats are angry because they don't want the Executive Branch to take the responsibilities because it suits them at the moment. Conversely they want the Judicial branch to take responsibility from the Legislative branch when it suits them. Don't get me wrong, Republicans want the same thing when the shoe is on the other foot, but the erosion of these boundries corrupts our government and harms the people. Checks and balances are there for a reason. Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
14-02-2017, 11:57 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(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.

So apply that to the Constitution, the same authors who wrote into law that black people were 3/5 of a real person and didn't think woman deserved the vote. This is a Supreme Court Justice, the Constitution is sorta their thing. Originalist eschew jurisprudence in favor of trying to intuit what they think the authors intended over 200 years ago, and much like religious leaders, it's funny how often their interpretation of their god/founding-father agrees with their own prejudices and politically motivated agenda.

Plus, that's exactly what Scalia did, and this guy is being billed as a Scalia replacement! Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:19 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 11:57 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

So apply that to the Constitution, the same authors who wrote into law that black people were 3/5 of a real person and didn't think woman deserved the vote. This is a Supreme Court Justice, the Constitution is sorta their thing. Originalist eschew jurisprudence in favor of trying to intuit what they think the authors intended over 200 years ago, and much like religious leaders, it's funny how often their interpretation of their god/founding-father agrees with their own prejudices and politically motivated agenda.

Plus, that's exactly what Scalia did, and this guy is being billed as a Scalia replacement! Dodgy

Anyone who isn't an originalist is definitionally eschewing jurisprudence, using your terminology. Twisting laws to mean something other than what was legally decided is what your advocating. If we follow your line of thinking, that "Yeah, these old guys were racists, therefore the laws they past are immoral, therefore we can change the meaning..." Then we may as well throw out the older amendments. I mean, Freedom of Speech is racist because it gives me the freedom to say nasty things about the Italians or the Japanese. Same for freedom of the press. How old does a law have to be before we can change it to be whatever we want without a legislative process? Can we change the 13th Amendment? Back then blacks and women didn't have suffrage so surely that one is garbage?

Obviously I think anyone who interprets law to make it fit their beliefs is a bad judge, but that's not what an originalist does by definition.

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