PDA

View Full Version : Court Ruleing Should Have Been 9-0



Robo
06-26-2018, 03:28 PM
The Supreme Court upheld Trump's Travel Ban by a 5-4 margin today. The Court should have produced a 9-0 ruling upholding it, anything less is simply absurd. 4 leftist judges argued in their minority opinion, that derogatory statements Trump made about Muslims during his candidacy for the Presidency made his travel ban unconstitutional. The full text of the actual law follows.






"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."






I don't find any references in the law about derogatory statements made by a President at any point in time to be a disqualifying factor for his authority to suspend aliens entry into the Unites States. Efforts to promote or enact such "amendments" to the law by a court or judge at any level of the law is simply a biased political attempt to make or


amend law from the bench in my opinion. No such authority constitutionally exist for courts or judges. ".....Congress shall make all laws....."(Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)

Peter1469
06-26-2018, 03:36 PM
5-4 is still a win.

DGUtley
06-26-2018, 03:37 PM
I am troubled by the politicization of the Court. You supposedly have the sharpest legal minds in the Country sitting on the Court. These are ideological differences, not legal differences, it seems. Both sides are guilty. A win is a win. I haven't finished the decision yet, so let's see what the left side has to say.

NapRover
06-26-2018, 03:37 PM
Nothing in common with Japanese internment. They were locked up. Those banned are locked out--free to roam the world except the USA. And only until they're vetted.

Nothing in common with religion, it only affects 8% of people who happen to be muslim, and had they not been driven out, would have applied to Christians, Jews, etc. North Korea and Venezuela are not muslim countries.

midcan5
06-26-2018, 04:09 PM
Gorsuch is a right wing corporate sycophant, anyone who has any experience with men of this type is not surprised at his vote and the other four un-American corporatists. People who grow up with privilege have this weird view of the world and life. What a right wing court is is a legislative branch for the idiots in charge. Ideologues of right are not thinkers, you'll always see them vote for power over people. Nothing new. Anyone who has read a history of the scotus must come to the conclusion intelligence reason and humanity are often missing. Imagine if Trump gets another puppet, the snowflakes will go wild.




https://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-was-the-question.html

DGUtley
06-26-2018, 04:37 PM
Gorsuch is a right wing corporate sycophant, anyone who has any experience with men of this type is not surprised at his vote and the other four un-American corporatists. People who grow up with privilege have this weird view of the world and life. What a right wing court is is a legislative branch for the idiots in charge. Ideologues of right are not thinkers, you'll always see them vote for power over people. Nothing new. Anyone who has read a history of the scotus must come to the conclusion intelligence reason and humanity are often missing. Imagine if Trump gets another puppet, the snowflakes will go wild.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-was-the-question.html

Can you site me to support for your position that he is a corporatist; or, as you say a "corporate sychophant"? Obviously, the TB decision doesn't do it. Moreover, during his nomination process we saw decisions where he ruled for and against corporations. So, having ruled for and against corporations, I fail to see how he can be defined as a "corporatist". Thank you.

donttread
06-26-2018, 04:37 PM
The Supreme Court upheld Trump's Travel Ban by a 5-4 margin today. The Court should have produced a 9-0 ruling upholding it, anything less is simply absurd. 4 leftist judges argued in their minority opinion, that derogatory statements Trump made about Muslims during his candidacy for the Presidency made his travel ban unconstitutional. The full text of the actual law follows.






"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."






I don't find any references in the law about derogatory statements made by a President at any point in time to be a disqualifying factor for his authority to suspend aliens entry into the Unites States. Efforts to promote or enact such "amendments" to the law by a court or judge at any level of the law is simply a biased political attempt to make or


amend law from the bench in my opinion. No such authority constitutionally exist for courts or judges. ".....Congress shall make all laws....."(Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)




As I have said for a long time ( and prior to the appointment of an actual textualist) the SC had become a mere extension of the Donkephant, "interpreting "clear statements to mean what their overlords needed them to mean. Most pretended it wasn't true. But it was and with few exceptions it still is. Perhaps we need an amendment where someone other than the "parties" appoints the Justices?

gamewell45
06-26-2018, 05:04 PM
The Supreme Court upheld Trump's Travel Ban by a 5-4 margin today. The Court should have produced a 9-0 ruling upholding it, anything less is simply absurd. 4 leftist judges argued in their minority opinion, that derogatory statements Trump made about Muslims during his candidacy for the Presidency made his travel ban unconstitutional. The full text of the actual law follows.






"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."






I don't find any references in the law about derogatory statements made by a President at any point in time to be a disqualifying factor for his authority to suspend aliens entry into the Unites States. Efforts to promote or enact such "amendments" to the law by a court or judge at any level of the law is simply a biased political attempt to make or


amend law from the bench in my opinion. No such authority constitutionally exist for courts or judges. ".....Congress shall make all laws....."(Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)



Either way its a moot point; the courts have ruled and that's it. Time to move forward.

gamewell45
06-26-2018, 05:05 PM
5-4 is still a win.

You are very correct; that's the mechanism we use in this country to settle disputes. The majority rules.

Robo
06-27-2018, 07:08 AM
I am troubled by the politicization of the Court. You supposedly have the sharpest legal minds in the Country sitting on the Court. These are ideological differences, not legal differences, it seems. Both sides are guilty. A win is a win. I haven't finished the decision yet, so let's see what the left side has to say.

The "sharpest legal minds" thingy is a farce. They aren't chosen for their constitutional respect and loyalties or confirmed for such. They're chosen by politically biased Presidents and confirmed by politically biased Senators and owe their loyalties to "The Party" and the "Ideology." That's why we have a bloated socialist federal government violating the constitution daily for decades and that's why we have a Military Industrial Complex economy, the world's police force and a 21 trillion dollar national debt.

Robo
06-27-2018, 07:11 AM
Gorsuch is a right wing corporate sycophant, anyone who has any experience with men of this type is not surprised at his vote and the other four un-American corporatists. People who grow up with privilege have this weird view of the world and life. What a right wing court is is a legislative branch for the idiots in charge. Ideologues of right are not thinkers, you'll always see them vote for power over people. Nothing new. Anyone who has read a history of the scotus must come to the conclusion intelligence reason and humanity are often missing. Imagine if Trump gets another puppet, the snowflakes will go wild.




https://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-was-the-question.html

You ignored the text of the law huh?

DGUtley
06-27-2018, 07:12 AM
The "sharpest legal minds" thingy is a farce. They aren't chosen for their constitutional respect and loyalties or confirmed for such. They're chosen by politically biased Presidents and confirmed by politically biased Senators and owe their loyalties to "The Party" and the "Ideology." That's why we have a bloated socialist federal government violating the constitution daily for decades and that's why we have a Military Industrial Complex economy, the world's police force and a 21 trillion dollar national debt.

I agree with some of what you say but do some research on The Federalist Society. https://fedsoc.org/ Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

Trump promised to appoint SCOTUS justices off of the TFS list. That was enough for me. It was all about the Court.

Robo
06-27-2018, 07:20 AM
As I have said for a long time ( and prior to the appointment of an actual textualist) the SC had become a mere extension of the Donkephant, "interpreting "clear statements to mean what their overlords needed them to mean. Most pretended it wasn't true. But it was and with few exceptions it still is. Perhaps we need an amendment where someone other than the "parties" appoints the Justices?

One would almost have to think these so-called brilliant legal minds are incompetent illiterate fools with no ability to read plain English. Truth is they have NO Constitutional loyalty the oath they swore to, they ignore and their true loyalty is not to the text of the Constitution but rather to their ideological biases. The problem with the founders plan is they couldn't come up with a way to prevent that since humanoids are biased by nature.

Robo
06-27-2018, 07:23 AM
Either way its a moot point; the courts have ruled and that's it. Time to move forward.

I never see sheading truth and light on the defects, biases and incompetence of government as being a "moot point."

Robo
06-27-2018, 07:24 AM
You are very correct; that's the mechanism we use in this country to settle disputes. The majority rules.

"Majorities" can be and often are "mobs."

DGUtley
06-27-2018, 07:27 AM
I never see sheading truth and light on the defects, biases and incompetence of government as being a "moot point."

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!

23745

gamewell45
06-27-2018, 07:51 AM
"Majorities" can be and often are "mobs."

In this context, while I don't always agree with SCOTUS rulings, I'd never say they were a "mob" issuing rulings.

donttread
06-27-2018, 08:11 AM
You are very correct; that's the mechanism we use in this country to settle disputes. The majority rules.


Actually the Constitution is supposed to "rule" that's how the justices are supposed to make decisions

DGUtley
06-27-2018, 08:23 AM
Actually the Constitution is supposed to "rule" that's how the justices are supposed to make decisions

Another winner!!!

23748

gamewell45
06-27-2018, 08:26 AM
Actually the Constitution is supposed to "rule" that's how the justices are supposed to make decisions

I agree, there has to be system in place that is used to resolve disagreements that arise among the American people. If I understand it correctly, the court listens to each side, then reviewing the constitution language, issues an opinion on the issue and both sides agree abide it. In my opinion, its the only way to avoid anarchy and chaos.

DGUtley
06-27-2018, 08:31 AM
I agree, there has to be system in place that is used to resolve disagreements that arise among the American people. If I understand it correctly, the court listens to each side, then reviewing the constitution language, issues an opinion on the issue and both sides agree abide it. In my opinion, its the only way to avoid anarchy and chaos.

The problem has arisen where the Court has strayed from the language of the USC and, instead, decided the case based on what feels good.

MisterVeritis
06-27-2018, 08:36 AM
I agree with some of what you say but do some research on The Federalist Society. https://fedsoc.org/ Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

Trump promised to appoint SCOTUS justices off of the TFS list. That was enough for me. It was all about the Court.
No one is speaking out to support a return to Constitutional limits on the Federal government. We are more socialist than free today. Most of the Federal budget takes wealth from each in accordance with their abilities and gives wealth to others in accordance with their need (as filtered by politicians who do so to remain in power).

MisterVeritis
06-27-2018, 08:38 AM
I agree, there has to be system in place that is used to resolve disagreements that arise among the American people. If I understand it correctly, the court listens to each side, then reviewing the constitution language, issues an opinion on the issue and both sides agree abide it. In my opinion, its the only way to avoid anarchy and chaos.
The Judiciary was established in the Constitution to try cases and controversies. The judges were tightly limited. Not any more. How did we get to a place where some idiot judge believes he or she can change national policy? It is time to slap them down and slap them down very hard.

gamewell45
06-27-2018, 08:49 AM
The problem has arisen where the Court has strayed from the language of the USC and, instead, decided the case based on what feels good.

If that is the case, then what is the remedy?? How do we fix it?

DGUtley
06-27-2018, 08:50 AM
If that is the case, then what is the remedy?? How do we fix it?

Appoint more originalist justices and make the states amend the constitution when they want to change it. Also, SCOTUS must smack down in its rulings these junior courts that go out on a limb.

Tahuyaman
06-27-2018, 09:17 AM
5-4 is still a win.

It is, but the OP is right. It should have been a 9-0 decision. The four who voted against the majority did so out of political reasons. They completely ignored the law. That's not good

donttread
06-27-2018, 10:25 AM
I agree, there has to be system in place that is used to resolve disagreements that arise among the American people. If I understand it correctly, the court listens to each side, then reviewing the constitution language, issues an opinion on the issue and both sides agree abide it. In my opinion, its the only way to avoid anarchy and chaos.


I don't know if "agree" is the right term but since it is what the Constitution says it is binding. Read it some time, it's actually smaller that some of today's single bills and unbelievably straight forward given all the "interpreting " that goes on.

donttread
06-27-2018, 10:27 AM
No one is speaking out to support a return to Constitutional limits on the Federal government. We are more socialist than free today. Most of the Federal budget takes wealth from each in accordance with their abilities and gives wealth to others in accordance with their need (as filtered by politicians who do so to remain in power).



Rich and poor alike benefit but rarely those in the middel. because the wealth is not simply distributed it is sold.