Judicial Tyranny and the Ninth Circuit

"Judicial tyranny" is another question-begging term, like "fake news" which makes courteous discussion almost impossible and opens the gateway to unrestrained expression of anger and hatred. The glee with which members on both sides take a dump in the stream of public discourse is a dangerous pollution of our constitutional democracy. Bring on the collapse of the existing order! Thanks, guys
 
domer76 said:
Whatever happened to your RW "natural rights" argument, bitch?
Click to expand...

Ya got me cornfused, I've never debated 'natural rights': swallower.

Non US citizens outside the US have zero Constitutional rights, that is a pedestrian 101 legal concept that even an extra stupid fuck like you should understand.

The 4 hair ball judges involved in this disgraceful decision that need to be impeached found standing where none, zip, zero, nada exists.

Republicans need to commit to impeachment of activist judges and flush the terlet.
 
OldMercsRule said:
Ya got me cornfused, I've never debated 'natural rights': swallower.

Non US citizens outside the US have zero Constitutional rights, that is a pedestrian 101 legal concept that even an extra stupid fuck like you should understand.

The 4 hair ball judges involved in this disgraceful decision that need to be impeached found standing where none, zip, zero, nada exists.

Republicans need to commit to impeachment of activist judges and flush the terlet.
Click to expand...
Nice job refuting something I didn't say. Non US citizens inside the US have some Constitutional rights, that is a pedestrian 101 legal concept that even an extra stupid fuck like you should understand.
 
Given the current ruling of the ninth circuit and the way it expanded Lukumi I dont think there is anyway to rewrite this to be constitutional. In fact I dont think it Trump can impose any restrictions on any Muslim majority country period.

The court relies on his initial statements on the campaign trail and Guiliani to make the case that it is intended to be a muslim ban. They clearly state they look beyond the statute to infer legislative intent as of course the eo does not target muslims specifically.

Since the intent is not based on the eo but rather the statements then there is no way to rewrite it as the flaw is not in any way related to the eo. In fact if Trump were to issue a travel ban on any muslim country this could be used again to declare it unconstitutional.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
Nice job refuting something I didn't say. Non US citizens inside the US have some Constitutional rights, that is a pedestrian 101 legal concept that even an extra stupid fuck like you should understand.
Click to expand...

Silly me, I don't think I have ever addressed you: fuck for brains, (unless yer a sock fer dummer the swallower or some other Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Fascist/Statist termite on this forum).

Fist thing: try some remedial reading lessons.

"Non US citizens outside the US have zero Constitutional rights", please note the werd "OUTSIDE".

The decision by these four hard Left jurists that are doing their best to help outside enemies of this Republic cum here to kill American people gives legal standing to non citizens outside America's shores.

Real simple, (only takes one functional brain cell to master the very basic legal concept).

I'd start with a reading class, (prolly need a brain transplant too), then once you've mastered the sixth grade level: hit the books.

 
tsuke said:
Given the current ruling of the ninth circuit and the way it expanded Lukumi I dont think there is anyway to rewrite this to be constitutional. In fact I dont think it Trump can impose any restrictions on any Muslim majority country period.

The court relies on his initial statements on the campaign trail and Guiliani to make the case that it is intended to be a muslim ban. They clearly state they look beyond the statute to infer legislative intent as of course the eo does not target muslims specifically.

Since the intent is not based on the eo but rather the statements then there is no way to rewrite it as the flaw is not in any way related to the eo. In fact if Trump were to issue a travel ban on any muslim country this could be used again to declare it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Good point, (the law and judicial precedents no longer function here on the Left coast).

That said Trump can draft EOs much quicker then jurists who wish to allow jihadists to cum to America to kill Americans can act, and eventually Gorsuch gets on the bench and the decisions can then be crushed.

We need 2/3 rds of the Senate to be Republican committed to draining the swamp of these types of jurists.
 
OldMercsRule said:
Good point, (the law and judicial precedents no longer function here on the Left coast).

That said Trump can draft EOs much quicker then jurists who wish to allow jihadists to cum to America to kill Americans can act, and eventually Gorsuch gets on the bench and the decisions can then be crushed.

We need 2/3 rds of the Senate to be Republican committed to draining the swamp of these types of jurists.
Click to expand...

thats kinda my point though. Given the way the 9th circuit interprets lukumi to mean any statement made on the campaign trail even if recanted any travel ban affecting any muslim nation is automatically unconstitutional due to it unfairly targeting the muslims.

The defect is not in the EO itself as lukumi already grants that the EO is perfectly fine and valid at face value but the legislative intent behind it.

For instance if you had all the Iranian citizens chant death to america and declare they would commit acts of terrorism against the US Trump could still not impose a travel ban on that country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top