Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2017, 12:38 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 11:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 03:39 PM)tomilay Wrote:  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

How is it a power grab? They ruled that denying gays the right to marry was unconstitutional? Isn't that what SCOTUS does?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2017 04:03 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(15-02-2017 12:19 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

The problem is, and remains so, that what Scalia did in practice was ignore jurisprudence in favor of what he imagined (through the lens of his own old, white, male Catholicism) the framers of the Constitution meant. When it suited him, he was more than comfortable effectively going with his imagination, rather than the principle of stare decisis. Scalia was a judge, not a historian, not a psychologists, not a political scientist. He favored the alchemy of his attempts to intuit the thoughts of men dead for centuries, rather than be constrained by the precedents already established by prior courts and judgement made in the interim centuries.

The definition can go shove itself, because in practice, Republicans want a young pick with seemingly impeccable credential who is both politically motivated with an agenda that matches theirs and who is smart enough to pass it off as anything but. A Supreme Court Judge ideally should be politically impartial, but that's not what they are going to nominate, and there's no reason to think that Trump's pick is going to do anything but carry on Scalia's legacy of politically driven bullshit under the faux intellectualism of 'Constitutional Originalism'.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(15-02-2017 02:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 12:19 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

The problem is, and remains so, that what Scalia did in practice was ignore jurisprudence in favor of what he imagined (through the lens of his own old, white, male Catholicism) the framers of the Constitution meant. When it suited him, he was more than comfortable effectively going with his imagination, rather than the principle of stare decisis. Scalia was a judge, not a historian, not a psychologists, not a political scientist. He favored the alchemy of his attempts to intuit the thoughts of men dead for centuries, rather than be constrained by the precedents already established by prior courts and judgement made in the interim centuries.

The definition can go shove itself, because in practice, Republicans want a young pick with seemingly impeccable credential who is both politically motivated with an agenda that matches theirs and who is smart enough to pass it off as anything but. A Supreme Court Judge ideally should be politically impartial, but that's not what they are going to nominate, and there's no reason to think that Trump's pick is going to do anything but carry on Scalia's legacy of politically driven bullshit under the faux intellectualism of 'Constitutional Originalism'.

Yes, however I never defended Scalia, or the new guy. Frankly I don't follow Justices' rulings and cases well enough to form an opinion of each of them. What you said in your first response was something akin to "Being a Constitutional Originalist is racist" then, in the next breathe you say Scalia wasn't a true Originalist. The definition stands for itself. Either Scalia was or wasn't that. It's not 'faux intellectualism'. Frankly a Justice's race, sexuality, sex, and any other immutable quality should not matter one bit. If its another old white guy, fine, if it's a 30 year old transgender black paraplegic atheist Jew born in China, fine. The Justice should have a proven track record of honesty, intellectual integrity, bravery, intelligence, and willingness to rule against their political (or any other type of) self-interest when the law doesn't allow for their position. You want a Justice who is willing to admit mistakes, and willing to change their mind when convincing arguments or evidence comes to light. Aside from having no training or practice in law whatsoever, you want a guy like me to be a Justice.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
It will be interesting to see what the orange slug does next.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
Just heard the news that the evil orange slug is facing an investigation into his Russian links, quelle surprise shame this particular slug cant be terminated by the application of some salt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 01:21 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(15-02-2017 12:03 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Just heard the news that the evil orange slug is facing an investigation into his Russian links, quelle surprise shame this particular slug cant be terminated by the application of some salt.

He is protected by his populism. His supporters won't let him be removed, no matter what.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-02-2017, 04:10 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(16-02-2017 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 12:03 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Just heard the news that the evil orange slug is facing an investigation into his Russian links, quelle surprise shame this particular slug cant be terminated by the application of some salt.

He is protected by his populism. His supporters won't let him be removed, no matter what.

Yes that's true to them he can do no wrong LDH is an example of that Imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(16-02-2017 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  He is protected by his populism. His supporters won't let him be removed, no matter what.
Only to a point, unless he can mount a coup or repeal parts of the constitution. He is building up a mounting list of egregious violations of constitutional law and civil society, and you must remember that while he has his followers, he has also activated and united the left and pushed it further left, and those people are already marching in the streets by the hundreds of thousands. You also must remember he lost the popular vote by a record amount, and no credible source in either party claims that had anything to do with voter fraud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:28 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(16-02-2017 01:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 12:03 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Just heard the news that the evil orange slug is facing an investigation into his Russian links, quelle surprise shame this particular slug cant be terminated by the application of some salt.

He is protected by his populism. His supporters won't let him be removed, no matter what.

His supporters are mostly fading away. He really just has the rabid minority of White Nationalists left that think he can do no wrong.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 10:03 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(14-02-2017 11:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 03:39 PM)tomilay Wrote:  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

In a common law system, laws can come from the legislature and the courts. That is all there is to it. Courts create new laws usually when faced with a novel(or in some cases a new-fangled anachronism) about which existing laws are ambiguous or silent http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-...ystem.html. They don't have to wait for Congress to act before they make the call on a case before them. When they do that, they are not usurping power from the legislature.

Granted, Dems will lean on courts now that they have no power in a hopelessly partisan Congress. Still there is nothing unbecoming or somehow illegal about it.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: