Disaster Or Possibilities

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
This one has my crystal ball torn between a good and a bad decision:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court took the rare step on Friday of expediting consideration of a major case, rapidly accelerating the schedule for reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.​

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case
by Ken Klukowski
3 Jun 2017

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case - Breitbart

On the negative side the Nifty Nine will come down on the side of the United Nations. In short: The entire issue is about the United Nations dictating this country’s immigration policy. Upholding President Trump travel ban flies in the face of United Nations authority.

NOTE: Four and a half justices already serve the United Nations. Justice Kennedy is the half. I fear that in the case of knocking down Trump’s executive order half makes five:

If Kennedy is a swing vote he always swings towards international law.

Ginsburg has no use for the US Constitution she rules on:​



Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg teach international law in Salzburg, Austria. What are the odds they will vote to uphold a un-ratified United Nations Treaty as well as vote to legitimate a United Nations Tribunal?

Kagan and Sotomayor are in the sewer rat’s pocket. So how would you like to see Justice Breyer the swing vote defending the US Constitution!​

Clerks & Presidents

On the plus side five out of nine could rule that only AMERICANS are protected by the Rights in the Constitution. Imagine what a ruling like that would do to the terrorists, illegal alien criminals, and parasite refugees the United Nations dumps in all of our courts. Considering the decisions the SCOTUS handed down in recent decades I do not see an AMERICANS ONLY ruling in the cards, but it does open up all sorts of possibilities.

p.s. Justice Kennedy got the seat that Judge Bork should have filled. I find it interesting that Kennedy is the exact opposite of this:


International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork
 
This one has my crystal ball torn between a good and a bad decision:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court took the rare step on Friday of expediting consideration of a major case, rapidly accelerating the schedule for reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.​

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case
by Ken Klukowski
3 Jun 2017

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case - Breitbart

On the negative side the Nifty Nine will come down on the side of the United Nations. In short: The entire issue is about the United Nations dictating this country’s immigration policy. Upholding President Trump travel ban flies in the face of United Nations authority.

NOTE: Four and a half justices already serve the United Nations. Justice Kennedy is the half. I fear that in the case of knocking down Trump’s executive order half makes five:

If Kennedy is a swing vote he always swings towards international law.

Ginsburg has no use for the US Constitution she rules on:​



Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg teach international law in Salzburg, Austria. What are the odds they will vote to uphold a un-ratified United Nations Treaty as well as vote to legitimate a United Nations Tribunal?

Kagan and Sotomayor are in the sewer rat’s pocket. So how would you like to see Justice Breyer the swing vote defending the US Constitution!​

Clerks & Presidents

On the plus side five out of nine could rule that only AMERICANS are protected by the Rights in the Constitution. Imagine what a ruling like that would do to the terrorists, illegal alien criminals, and parasite refugees the United Nations dumps in all of our courts. Considering the decisions the SCOTUS handed down in recent decades I do not see an AMERICANS ONLY ruling in the cards, but it does open up all sorts of possibilities.

p.s. Justice Kennedy got the seat that Judge Bork should have filled. I find it interesting that Kennedy is the exact opposite of this:


International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork

Hopefully some common sense will prevail this round. We have enough unhappy campers without adding more social problems to the already confused masses.
 
Hopefully some common sense will prevail this round.
To RodISHI: You got that right.

Douglas V. Gibbs wrote a great article for readers who like meat with their Supreme Court hot potatoes.


Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban
By Douglas V. Gibbs
June 3, 2017

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

I especially enjoyed these excerpts:


The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.​

Thank you Mr. Gibbs for including that. It cannot be said too many times.

And this one:


The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.​

I think Roe v. Wade (1973) was the blueprint for today’s judicial activism. Members of Congress were in favor of infanticide long before 1973. It went nowhere because legislating baby-killing put their seats at risk; so they gave appointed for life judges on the Warren Court permission to do it. The Supreme Court has been building on that blueprint ever since Roe.

Nothing can ever top decriminalizing killing babies. By comparison, a ruling protecting United Nations refugees is a walk in the park.

Incidentally, a president’s nominees is his only leverage. It is not much leverage knowing the Senate will never confirm anyone who might derail the long-serving gravy train senators ride.

Some presidents would stop the Supreme Court if they could. Presidents like Obama encourage more judicial legislation. Do not even think about what baby-butcher Hillary Clinton would have done had she won the election.
 
Shakespeare Said 'Lets Kill All the Lawyers" maybe because he knew they would become judges.
 
I especially enjoyed these excerpts:

The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

Yes, agreed this is very good one to quote as it is not merely a religion and it is incompatible with our fundamental system that is based on personal freedoms and liberty to seek a fulfilling life of our own dreams and ambitions.
 
The decision will favor Trump.
To miketx: I wish I was sure of that:
This one has my crystal ball torn between a good and a bad decision:
Shakespeare Said 'Lets Kill All the Lawyers" maybe because he knew they would become judges.
To Desperado: The sentiment is noble:

Before moving on to more precise matters, I want to address this often misunderstood line:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Taken in context Shakespeare was praising lawyers.​

Henry VI: Act 4. Scene II

JACK CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

ALL: God save your majesty!

JACK CADE: I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.​

I doubt if there are ten adults in America who never heard the line “Kill all the lawyers.” But how many know the reason Dick was suggesting mass murder?

Dick was saying that killing all lawyers was a necessary condition for successful revolution; i.e., putting Jack Cade the clothier on the English throne.

I am not defending lawyers, nor could I. The ACLU is the problem with a blanket endorsement. No one but a liberal can defend ACLU lawyers who foment revolution rather than prevent it. In short: ACLU lawyers are not the kind of lawyers Dick wanted to kill.​

Newton’s Third Law Of Motion & The 2nd Amendment
The US hasn't been a sovereign nation since we joined the WTO.
To Indeependent: The exact date:

If there is a date that will live in infamy that day is July 28, 1945. On that day the US Senate voted to ratify the UN Charter —— in effect handing America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.​

Destroying The Ladder
 
Unfortunately Robert Bork is wrong. International law exists every time when you have enough fire power against the civilians of your opponent. Without international law, you can not successfully defend your actions of war crimes against them.

On the other note, the US constitution is defined as the law of the land, very luckily, instead of some leftists socialist definition European style like some law of Americans or of democratic majorities. Too bad, Americans have neither the cultural stability nor the brain power to resolve their UN refugee crisis before they ruin their constitution with it.
 
Unfortunately Robert Bork is wrong.
To anotherlife: I find Judge Bork’s view of international law infallible. The fact that Democrats did everything they could to do block his conformation proves I am right. And please do not tell me the Left’s reasons for denying Robert Bork (1927 - 2012). I know the mantra by heart. The quote you object to came from Robert Bork’s book Coercing Virtue. You might want to hear Bork elaborate on international view in this video. Move the cursor 31:45

VIDEO ▼

Coercing Virtue | Video | C-SPAN.org

NOTE: Ted Kennedy, surely the foulest human being that ever sat in the US Senate, and Joe Biden who is not far behind Kennedy, sank Robert Bork’s confirmation. All of the smears they laid on Bork hid their own hatred of Bork’s international views.
International law exists every time when you have enough fire power against the civilians of your opponent.
To anotherlife: Where does The Hague get that fire power?
Without international law, you can not successfully defend your actions of war crimes against them.
To anotherlife: That is ludicrous. Judge Bork pretty much covered that absurdity in the video.
On the other note, the US constitution is defined as the law of the land, very luckily, instead of some leftists socialist definition European style like some law of Americans or of democratic majorities.
To anotherlife: Democrats define it for the sole purpose of circumventing it.
Too bad, Americans have neither the cultural stability nor the brain power to
To anotherlife: The highest standard of living for the most people for more than two centuries looks pretty stable to me.
resolve their UN refugee crisis before they ruin their constitution with it.
To anotherlife: That is too easy. Simply withdraw from the United Nations and get that goddamned plaque out of the Statue Of Liberty:

NOTE: The New Colossus corresponds with the beginning of Socialism in America and the start of America’s decline:​

Author John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the statue. However, it was Lazarus's poem that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants".​

Myth No. 1: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..." Well, not quite. Emma Lazarus's 1883 poem "The New Colossus" -- written in the year the Statue of Liberty was dedicated -- has been taken by many to reflect a true picture of immigration. This is not the case. From the colonial period on, there were standards that immigrants had to meet. Originally addressed at the regional level, then by the states, they were eventually federalized. The immigration stations, such as the one at Ellis Island in New York harbor, were not welcoming centers. They were processing points for the inspection and certification of new arrivals. Individuals with physical or mental problems, or who were known to be criminals in their country of origin, were denied entry. Older or underage family members required sponsorship. All of this was to ensure that the newly arrived immigrants would not be a burden to their new country and could either support themselves or be supported by others.​

XXXXX

Myth No. 2: People come here because they want to become Americans.

XXXXX

Myth No. 3: Everyone is really seeking the same things.​

November 28, 2010
The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration
By Frank Burke

Articles: The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration

The Most Malignant Sonnet Ever Written

Problem solved.
 
Unfortunately Robert Bork is wrong.
To anotherlife: I find Judge Bork’s view of international law infallible. The fact that Democrats did everything they could to do block his conformation proves I am right. And please do not tell me the Left’s reasons for denying Robert Bork (1927 - 2012). I know the mantra by heart. The quote you object to came from Robert Bork’s book Coercing Virtue. You might want to hear Bork elaborate on international view in this video. Move the cursor 31:45

VIDEO ▼

Coercing Virtue | Video | C-SPAN.org

NOTE: Ted Kennedy, surely the foulest human being that ever sat in the US Senate, and Joe Biden who is not far behind Kennedy, sank Robert Bork’s confirmation. All of the smears they laid on Bork hid their own hatred of Bork’s international views.
International law exists every time when you have enough fire power against the civilians of your opponent.
To anotherlife: Where does The Hague get that fire power?
Without international law, you can not successfully defend your actions of war crimes against them.
To anotherlife: That is ludicrous. Judge Bork pretty much covered that absurdity in the video.
On the other note, the US constitution is defined as the law of the land, very luckily, instead of some leftists socialist definition European style like some law of Americans or of democratic majorities.
To anotherlife: Democrats define it for the sole purpose of circumventing it.
Too bad, Americans have neither the cultural stability nor the brain power to
To anotherlife: The highest standard of living for the most people for more than two centuries looks pretty stable to me.
resolve their UN refugee crisis before they ruin their constitution with it.
To anotherlife: That is too easy. Simply withdraw from the United Nations and get that goddamned plaque out of the Statue Of Liberty:

NOTE: The New Colossus corresponds with the beginning of Socialism in America and the start of America’s decline:​

Author John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the statue. However, it was Lazarus's poem that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants".​

Myth No. 1: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..." Well, not quite. Emma Lazarus's 1883 poem "The New Colossus" -- written in the year the Statue of Liberty was dedicated -- has been taken by many to reflect a true picture of immigration. This is not the case. From the colonial period on, there were standards that immigrants had to meet. Originally addressed at the regional level, then by the states, they were eventually federalized. The immigration stations, such as the one at Ellis Island in New York harbor, were not welcoming centers. They were processing points for the inspection and certification of new arrivals. Individuals with physical or mental problems, or who were known to be criminals in their country of origin, were denied entry. Older or underage family members required sponsorship. All of this was to ensure that the newly arrived immigrants would not be a burden to their new country and could either support themselves or be supported by others.​

XXXXX

Myth No. 2: People come here because they want to become Americans.

XXXXX

Myth No. 3: Everyone is really seeking the same things.​

November 28, 2010
The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration
By Frank Burke

Articles: The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration

The Most Malignant Sonnet Ever Written

Problem solved.

Problem side stepped, not solved. The Hague gets its fire power from the same old ww2 entente that is still the UN security council. And the US is not the highest living standard country by far. For example, France has the same GDP per capita as the US but with only 30 hours per week and 2 months paid vacations per year. Some east European countries are also propped by France to have higher living standard than the USA, e.g. Slovakia.
 

Forum List

Back
Top