Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

tsuke said:
“Federal courts,” the brief said, “have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.”

this is from judge robart. Nothing about constitutionality. That is not the primary goal of the court.

Its to protect marginalized groups. Like you know the christians in syria lol.
Click to expand...


The Constitution DOES prohibit "Irrational, Discriminatory conduct." So he is talking about Constitutional Issues.
 
Yaya said:
The States briefs are due midnight tonight pacific and Trump's is due tomorrow by 6 pm eastern.

:corn:

My prediction:

Trump wins. The Constitution gives "plenary" power to Congress over immigration. Congress then gave some power to the executive branch, vis a vis, the code Grind posted. This is not to say that the executive branch now has plenary power, rather, that Congress has very broad power over immigration and in giving some power to the Executive branch regarding immigration, I do not see how the judicial branch can rule against Congress and the Executive branch when that power is plenary, and even under the most strictest scrutiny, Trump wins due to national security reasons.
Click to expand...

.
 
Jarod said:
The Constitution DOES prohibit "Irrational, Discriminatory conduct." So he is talking about Constitutional Issues.
Click to expand...

discriminatory sure. But irrational? As far as I know the court should have no say in the motive of any order being passed nor its effectivity just in its legality.
 
Jarod said:
So let me prove my point this way....

Do you think Congress or the President ever have the legal or legitimate power to violate the Constitution? Because that is my point, they don't then NEVER Do.
Click to expand...

MEH - Sorry
I'm not going to play your game of you wanting to answer a question, by asking a question.

What is being violated, in the Constitution?
 
Jarod said:
The Constitution DOES prohibit "Irrational, Discriminatory conduct." So he is talking about Constitutional Issues.
Click to expand...

I don't see where that helps the judges case.

In order to make such a determination you first need all the facts in hand. Does he attend national security briefings? Does he know *for a fact* that there are no ISIS members or ISIS sympathizers amongst the many thousands of refugees?

He doesn't know because he can't know.

All he has to go on is the liberal talking point that no refugees have committed a terror attack on our soil.....yet. The 'yet' is dying to go there but it's always left off.

It amounts to a gamble. The trend has been that no refugees have gone full-Islamist. So the left, and this one federal judge, is willing to gamble that the trend holds up even if innocent American lives are the line.

You know what? People are tired of it. I voted for Trump mostly on account of the economy but millions of people voted for him because one dead American at the hands of an illegal immigrant or refugee is one too many.

The judge needs to exercise his value judgements on policy in the voting booth, like the rest of us do.
 
It interests me that both the trumpers and the brexiteers hate and denounce the rule of law, as if legal decisions were whims of individual judges. It is an indication at once of illiterate immaturity and nascent fascism.
 
iolo said:
It interests me that both the trumpers and the brexiteers hate and denounce the rule of law, as if legal decisions were whims of individual judges. It is an indication at once of illiterate immaturity and nascent fascism.
Click to expand...

It's people who are ignorant but don't realize they are. Many, especially on this site, think they are constitutional law experts. Constitutiona law is a very complex subject
 
Darth Omar said:
I don't see where that helps the judges case.

In order to make such a determination you first need all the facts in hand. Does he attend national security briefings? Does he know *for a fact* that there are no ISIS members or ISIS sympathizers amongst the many thousands of refugees?

He doesn't know because he can't know.

All he has to go on is the liberal talking point that no refugees have committed a terror attack on our soil.....yet. The 'yet' is dying to go there but it's always left off.

It amounts to a gamble. The trend has been that no refugees have gone full-Islamist. So the left, and this one federal judge, is willing to gamble that the trend holds up even if innocent American lives are the line.

You know what? People are tired of it. I voted for Trump mostly on account of the economy but millions of people voted for him because one dead American at the hands of an illegal immigrant or refugee is one too many.

The judge needs to exercise his value judgements on policy in the voting booth, like the rest of us do.
Click to expand...

He was following the law, you might not like the law, but he followed it. The standard for a TRO is very low.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You keep saying that and I've asked you to explain and even provided a copy of the 1st Amendment.
Can you expand on your comment or do you just intend to keep repeating it, as a mantra?
Click to expand...

Do you contend that Congress or the president are allowed to violate the Constitution?
 
Jarod said:
It's people who are ignorant but don't realize they are. Many, especially on this site, think they are constitutional law experts. Constitutional law is a very complex subject
Click to expand...

Agreed, I aced Con Law in undergrad political science and got A and B in two courses in Law School and I am no con law scholar. Even if you booked con law that doesn't make you an expert. So many talk out their ass, but who cares, it's the net. But at least it's good to know enough to appreciate the complexity. The most important thing really, is topical familiarity of any subject, otherwise you are walking blind without a cane, and the internet is fucking full of blind caneless chumps bumping into each other, assuming their half baked prejudices and whatever crap they've gleaned from night court makes their thoughts worth publishing.
 
Jarod said:
False, in this case it's up to the judges discretion, it's a federal question involving a nationwide practice.
Click to expand...

sorry Jarod, but again you make a mistake about the law.....no other district judge needs to follow the decision reached by a district judge.....precedent is not established by peers......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top