We are a nation of laws......

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not the one who is butthurt over the decision, you are. And you still haven't evidenced an understanding of what was argued and decided. I'm not going to waste my time engaging with anyone too lazy to read the homework ahead of the seminar discussion. So, prove to me that you have done the homework by arguing what specifically in the briefs, oral arguments and decision you object to - not just 'judges bad! Me no like!' Then I'll happily argue with you all day long.

Going to bed now, I look forward to reading your arguments in the morning. Hint: all documents are available on the 9th Circuit's website, as well as the oral argument recording - which is also on YouTube.

Mad liberal is mad.

You might want to go quickly before someone embarrasses you, like I'm ready to.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Adolf Trump doesn't understand that - yet...

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, prove to me that you have done the homework by arguing what specifically in the briefs, oral arguments and decision you object to - not just 'judges bad! Me no like!' Then I'll happily argue with you all day long.

Easy, the ruling gave constitutional rights to people who aren't even naturalized citizens of the US. So, how can a court do that? The Constitutional applies territorially (as in within the United States and her territories), not globally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Adolf Trump doesn't understand that - yet...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

All kidding and bantering aside, the real IMPORTANCE of this 'smack down" to Trump's erratic and ill-advised policies is that he may (or not) begin to realize that running a country of laws like ours is NOT the same as running a real estate business where people who tell him he may be wrong get fired or don't get paid.

I agree. Wait until Trump sees the latest PPP polling due out tomorrow. Rachel Maddow had an exclusive on it earlier tonight. Most of the results are negative on Trump - but the most interesting part of the poll was that most Trump supporters don't believe he should abide by court decisions that don't go his way. In other words - they think Trump is above the law - and the Constitution. This is exactly the same shit we see from NaziCons each and every day on this board - including tonight.

Well, what do you expect.

Obama spent eight years wiping his ass with the document.....

People really are not in touch with what it is.

You are at the top of that list.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Roe was law in Texas.

The SCOTUS jumped in....and did what.....

After all.....we are a nation of laws.

Am I missing something, or are you really this dense?

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so. Let me know if you require further explanation.

No...there was an existing law in Texas.

There was no federal law to rule on.

It appears you miss a great deal.

It appears you don't understand how judicial review works.

I have a law degree; I do.

Here's a quick explanation: A state has a law, that law impacts a citizen, giving the citizen standing to challenge the law. The citizen sues in the state or federal courts, eventually through the appellate process the case makes its way to the biggest baddest court - where the buck stops - the SCOTUS. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, that ruling is binding on that state and that citizen - and in many cases, it is binding then also on EVERY state and EVERY citizen.

There are many nuances and some kinds of cases wherein the rulings are very limited, but I don't wish to confuse you. The above is basic civics you should have learned in junior high or high school.

I didn't realize Cracker-Jacks had law degrees in them.

What you describe sometimes happens...sometimes it does not.....

Unless you are stupid enough to say that every case makes it to the SCOTUS.

Many land at the State Supreme Court and go no further.

We'll stop there on that point.

In the case of Roe...that is what happened. Landing in the Texas SC.

But Harry Blackmunn (or Harry the asshole as we call him) decided to get in a states business.

And we'll simply bypass the issue of what goes to the SCOTUS and what does not.

However, states immediately began (and have ever since) passed laws that have chipped away at Roe so that in many states it is much more difficult to get an abortion. And pro-choice leaders won't take it back to the SCOTUS because the are afraid it will be overturned.

But if it was.....it would go back to the states and probably 30+ would legalize it at some level (from what I recall it was legal in five states when Roe was decided).

So thanks for the flawed description....

And you are welcome for the correction.

You might call whoever gave you your law degree (assuming you really didn't get it out of a candy box) and ask for your money back.

Georgetown, actually.

Yes, of course many (MOST) cases never get to SCOTUS. I told you I was giving you a basic explanation of what happens when one does.

No, you didn't articulate the history of Roe very well at all.

And Roe has been revisited by the SCOTUS in various ways in a number of cases since.

Really, you could just spend a little time on Wikipedia and you'd sound smarter. Too busy watching Alex Jones?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, we are a nation of laws.

Are we a nation of laws when it comes to illegal immigration or the Second Amendment?

 

[owebo]

The recent 9th circuit appellate decision confirms that tenet.....Mindful that the district court decision was by a judge appointed by a republican....and the appellate decision ALSO had a judge appointed by a republican.......Ergo, Trump's inane comment that the decisions are "all political" is as stupid as most of the comments he tweets.

We are NOT a nation of right wingers interpreting the Constitution as they want it to mean.

We are NOT a nation of ignorant presidents who learn their legal precepts from watching episodes of Law & Order ....

We are NOT a nation that supports xenophobia, torturing and misogynistic policies because some clowns tell us that otherwise we should live in fear.

The "emperor's new clothes" are being exposed.

Except when democrats judge shop....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

I'm not the one who is missing the boat here. I'd suggest you start with Marbury v Madison. Also the Federalist Papers might help you understand why our forefathers carefully crafted a government with checks and balances - NOTHING is beyond judicial review, thank goodness! And honestly, I feel that way even when I LOATHE the opinions. Our system is beautiful; please don't support Donald John Trump in his efforts to destroy it. Don't you love our country? I do.

Please point out where it says nothing is beyond review in the Federalist Papers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny how Big Sky isn't even acknowledging me. I must be making an infallible argument. I eagerly await a rebuttal!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Roe was law in Texas.

The SCOTUS jumped in....and did what.....

After all.....we are a nation of laws.

Am I missing something, or are you really this dense?

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so. Let me know if you require further explanation.

No...there was an existing law in Texas.

There was no federal law to rule on.

It appears you miss a great deal.

It appears you don't understand how judicial review works.

I have a law degree; I do.

Here's a quick explanation: A state has a law, that law impacts a citizen, giving the citizen standing to challenge the law. The citizen sues in the state or federal courts, eventually through the appellate process the case makes its way to the biggest baddest court - where the buck stops - the SCOTUS. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, that ruling is binding on that state and that citizen - and in many cases, it is binding then also on EVERY state and EVERY citizen.

There are many nuances and some kinds of cases wherein the rulings are very limited, but I don't wish to confuse you. The above is basic civics you should have learned in junior high or high school.

I didn't realize Cracker-Jacks had law degrees in them.

What you describe sometimes happens...sometimes it does not.....

Unless you are stupid enough to say that every case makes it to the SCOTUS.

Many land at the State Supreme Court and go no further.

We'll stop there on that point.

In the case of Roe...that is what happened. Landing in the Texas SC.

But Harry Blackmunn (or Harry the asshole as we call him) decided to get in a states business.

And we'll simply bypass the issue of what goes to the SCOTUS and what does not.

However, states immediately began (and have ever since) passed laws that have chipped away at Roe so that in many states it is much more difficult to get an abortion. And pro-choice leaders won't take it back to the SCOTUS because the are afraid it will be overturned.

But if it was.....it would go back to the states and probably 30+ would legalize it at some level (from what I recall it was legal in five states when Roe was decided).

So thanks for the flawed description....

And you are welcome for the correction.

You might call whoever gave you your law degree (assuming you really didn't get it out of a candy box) and ask for your money back.

Georgetown, actually.

Yes, of course many (MOST) cases never get to SCOTUS. I told you I was giving you a basic explanation of what happens when one does.

No, you didn't articulate the history of Roe very well at all.

And Roe has been revisited by the SCOTUS in various ways in a number of cases since.

Really, you could just spend a little time on Wikipedia and you'd sound smarter. Too busy watching Alex Jones?

Georgetown owes you something back.

And no you didn't say that. But thanks for trying. Maybe you should read your posts before referencing them.

I certainly included more than you did. And what part did I miss....it didn't go to the Texas SC. That the SCOTUS didn't take it on with Harry the asshole writing the majority opinion...do tell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

But so far, you haven't made any constitutional arguments.

Due Process isn't applicable to people who aren't even citizens of our country who aren't living in our country, yet the 9th Circuit made no delineation between American citizens and noncitizens.

 

[BoSoxGal]

So, prove to me that you have done the homework by arguing what specifically in the briefs, oral arguments and decision you object to - not just 'judges bad! Me no like!' Then I'll happily argue with you all day long.

Easy, the ruling gave constitutional rights to people who aren't even naturalized citizens of the US. So, how can a court do that? The Constitutional applies territorially (as in within the United States and her territories), not globally.

You clearly didn't read the arguments or the opinion - because that most definitely isn't what happened. You are getting your talking points from TV/radio/Breitbart and regurgitating them here. I'm embarrassed for you.

Now you have a choice; call me names and behave like a junior high schooler, or read the homework and get back to me. I'm happy to engage in civil discussion about civic issues.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Funny how Big Sky isn't even acknowledging me. I must be making an infallible argument. I eagerly await a rebuttal!

Why ?

There hasn't been one yet.

You know the definition of insanity......

 

[BoSoxGal]

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

But so far, you haven't mad any constitutional arguments.

Due Process isn't applicable to people who aren't even citizens of our country who aren't living in our country, yet the 9th Circuit made no delineation between American citizens and noncitizens.

Again, you are not talking about what actually happened.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Adolf Trump doesn't understand that - yet...

You would never be the one to explain it.

You have no clue.

 

[BoSoxGal]

It's clear from your comments that you are entirely unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the arguments made therein.

I find that rich coming from someone with an avatar like yours.

At any rate, the facts are clear. The president is well with in his Constitutional and statutory jurisdiction to do what he's doing. I've cited statutes thus far that liberals like you have blown past altogether.

The application of statutes by the executive is subject to judicial review - even in this case. Basic civics.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we are a nation of laws. Adolf Trump doesn't understand that - yet...

You would never be the one to explain it.

You have no clue.

I agree. Wait until Trump sees the latest PPP polling due out tomorrow. Rachel Maddow had an exclusive on it earlier tonight. The most interesting part of the poll was that most Trump supporters don't believe he should abide by court decisions that don't go his way. In other words - they think Trump is above the law - and the Constitution.

....then....I believe, even main-stream republicans will turn on the Trumpster and some sane cabinet members and staffers would begin to quit.

And what you believe matters why ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You clearly didn't read the arguments or the opinion - because that most definitely isn't what happened. You are getting your talking points from TV/radio/Breitbart and regurgitating them here. I'm embarrassed for you.

No. You are spouting talking points and insults of your own.

I pay no attention to Breitbart, nor do I watch much TV. The only time I listen to radio is for college football.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The application of statutes by the executive is subject to judicial review - even in this case. Basic civics.

Review, not dictation. Judges are not allowed to dictate or change the power of the President when he is exercising it within his constitutionally and congressionally granted purview.