Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

blackascoal said:
The courts already consider intent. That door is already open.

Courts likely to probe Trump's intent in issuing travel ban
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-legal-idUSKBN15S14H
Click to expand...

The intent is obvious. It has been broadcast for over a year now...
Trumptards think he can get a religiously bigoted hate order by the courts if it is just worded correctly ...
Intent is everything, as they have now learned...
A new order, no matter how worded, with the same intent will be treated the same...
The courts are doing their job...
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
The intent is obvious. It has been broadcast for over a year now...
Trumptards think he can get a religiously bigoted hate order by the courts if it is just worded correctly ...
Intent is everything, as they have now learned...
A new order, no matter how worded, with the same intent will be treated the same...
The courts are doing their job...
Click to expand...

I COMPLETELY agree with you.
 
the thing you overlook is that even if he goes to the SC and the 9th is made to eat dirt it won't keep them from doing the same thing......they eat dirt over 80% of the time......they seem to like it.......
 
tsuke said:
exactly I bring this up as well. In lukumi you had the legislative intent very clear. Trump changed the muslim ban multiple times over the course of the campaign.

"Legal scholars say this could move the court into uncharted waters."

This is true. If this ruling holds then any statement made in the campaign trail or anywhere else by you or one of your surrogates can be used to derive legislative intent for the eo.

I said this on the earlier article I made. The courts should hold nowhere near that much power but the democrats seem insistent to give it to them at the time when a conservative court for the next generation is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

One constitutional remedy to reign-in an out of control judiciary is impeachment.

Maybe it's time to think about invoking it.
 
Darth Omar said:
Are you sure you're a lawyer lol?

Trump can say the moon is made of cheese but the only thing the court is supposed to consider is whether the *policy itself* comports with the constitution.
Click to expand...

The intent is important.
 
blackascoal said:
BINGO!!
Click to expand...

Bingo....exactly! The perfect example of how the left attempts to use Judicial Oligrachical Fiat to circumvent the Constitution and the rule of law as legislated via representation of the PEOPLE..et.al.,

Hear say is never allowed to be submitted as prima facie evidence in the real world.....as hear say can never be beyond any sane person's reason to doubt its subjectivity. And that's what the 9th has accomplished...again, using subjective opinion in order to discount the objective evidence found within the four corners of the actual Executive Order. The 9th has ventured in the arena of Mind Reading much like exampled in the fictionalized Hollywood world of make believe....all one needs is Tom Cruz to make a cameo appearance for the defense. Ruling preemptively on a motive that was never projected into objective reality. The Mind Police strike again. Priceless

The reality: Its nothing but an expected left wing hiccup. A new Executive Order is already in the works.....If I was in the president's place, I would drag my feet on this one as long as possible...delaying any appeals for any number of legal reasons....tie it up in court for months if not years, until just before the 2018 election campaigns begin. While the new EO takes effect. Legalize can be a double edged sword.
 
Rune said:
Why would you wish an attack on your fellow Americans so you can blame the liberals? That makes you, whatever the fuck you claim to be, far worse than the liberals.
Click to expand...

Patent pending, send me the private information, and I give you my oath I will not reveal that which you do not wish me to reveal. If you prove to me in private, that you actually have a patent pending for over 10 years, I will make an announcement in the correct forum and will not divulge any private information you give me. If you convince me, privately, I will make that thread that You are right and I am wrong.
 
Since Rune claims I am attorney, he can safely talk to me as an attorney and I cannot divulge any information he says if it is attorney/client privilege.

Up to you now Rune. I promise to keep all private conversations private as if I was your attorney. You now have privilege, both bostfully and legally.

Your turn.
 
Tsuke, this ain't your thing. You might not be capable of understanding the courts opinion but you are obviously not trying. You are just trying to spread ignorant lies and fear.

The due process argument goes beyond green card holders. As pointed out to you before, the court's opinion clearly and directly contradicts your claims.

Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive.


Gerrymander has one specific meaning and it has nothing to do with this case or Lukumi.

The rest of your nonsense is based on some fear about a precedent set by this motion for a stay in regards to religious discrimination. Once again, the court reached no conclusion on the religious discrimination issue.

The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Tsuke, this ain't your thing. You might not be capable of understanding the courts opinion but you are obviously not trying. You are just trying to spread ignorant lies and fear.

The due process argument goes beyond green card holders. As pointed out to you before, the court's opinion clearly and directly contradicts your claims.

Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive.


Gerrymander has one specific meaning and it has nothing to do with this case or Lukumi.

The rest of your nonsense is based on some fear about a precedent set by this motion for a stay in regards to religious discrimination. Once again, the court reached no conclusion on the religious discrimination issue.

The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
Click to expand...
I am really glad you have returned, always enjoy your comments.
 
Ralph said:
Hear say is never allowed to be submitted as prima facie evidence in the real world.....as hear say can never be beyond any sane person's reason to doubt its subjectivity. And that's what the 9th has accomplished...again, using subjective opinion in order to discount the objective evidence found within the four corners of the actual Executive Order. The 9th has ventured in the arena of Mind Reading much like exampled in the fictionalized Hollywood world of make believe....all one needs is Tom Cruz to make a cameo appearance for the defense. Ruling preemptively on a motive that was never projected into objective reality. The Mind Police strike again. Priceless
Click to expand...

"Hearsay" means X is repeating something that they claim Y said, but there is no direct evidence that Y said it.

In this case, lawyers are quoting the administration's actual, published words. How is that "hearsay"?
 
barrycarter said:
"Hearsay" means X is repeating something that they claim Y said, but there is no direct evidence that Y said it.

In this case, lawyers are quoting the administration's actual, published words. How is that "hearsay"?
Click to expand...

Hearsay is an out of court statement uttered in court offered to prove the matters asserted therein.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the thing you overlook is that even if he goes to the SC and the 9th is made to eat dirt it won't keep them from doing the same thing......they eat dirt over 80% of the time......they seem to like it.......
Click to expand...

That's not actually true. They're only reversed 80%+ of the time when the Supreme Court grants a cert. It doesn't include cases where the decision isn't challenged or where the Supreme Court refuses to hear the challenge.

I believe all Circuit Courts have 50%+ reversal, which sort of makes sense: the Supreme Court usually won't grant a cert unless they have some reason to believe the decision is wrong.
 
NOVA said:
Like your claim that executive orders are an anomaly....of course they are not and have been used extensively by just about all presidents....
Click to expand...

An anomaly in the sense that this isn't how regulations/laws are normally created. Most regulations/laws are created by Congress or by an agency to which Congress has delegated power. I'm saying it's easier to challenge an executive order than it is to challenge an actual law.
 
barrycarter said:
"Hearsay" means X is repeating something that they claim Y said, but there is no direct evidence that Y said it.

In this case, lawyers are quoting the administration's actual, published words. How is that "hearsay"?
Click to expand...

They are quoting words not found to exist in the Executive Order.....the evidence under consideration, if its not in the EO...its hear say. Did the court hear actual testimony from Trump or McCain? Then, its hear say.

Even when the President referenced muslims the phrase was always in the context of being synonymous with preventing TERRORISM as all ilsamic terrorists are 100% muslim....its a most difficult thing to declare that you are going to prevent ilslamic terrorist from enterning the nation void of screening ALL MUSLIMS that wish to enter this nation, as the facts in evidence demonstrate.....all islamic terrorists are in fact MUSLIMS, none are Christian terrorists.

Has no one never wondered why Barry Soetoro or any of his minions on the left refused to call them ISLAMIC TERRORISTS? Its due to the simple fact....legally once that fact is introduced into evidence...the Religious test falls flat on its face as its the duty of the president to protect the Citizens of the United States of America first and foremost.

Thus its simply hear say to attempt to declare that the president was attempting to ban all muslims....the EO was never a ban, it was a pause on immigration by Muslims who are in fact the sole provider of islamic terrorism, first on the 7 nations targeted by the last administration......until such time as a better system of screening can take place.

In order for this EO to be considered a breach of the Bill of Rights. 2 Things must be demonstrated by anyone who wishes to prosecute it as being a Religious test. 1. Any one that is not a citizen or pre-authorized to enter the nation though green card immigration must be on US soil to apply Constitutional standing...and the port of entry is not US SOIL until you have cleared customs and immigration. 2. The prosecutor would have to prove that some faith other than ISLAM produces islamic terrorists to prove that the president was targeting any person because of their faith alone. Good luck with this dog and phony show.

Then you add the fact that the 9th has a historical record of being overturned by SCOTUS in 3/4s of the cases that has been appealed due to such RADICAL INTERPRETATIONS of the supposed facts in evidence.
 
Last edited:
tsuke said:
le sigh. Again if you wanna open that door and make this the precedent then you open it. It will not stop with Trump. Every president and congressman/senator can have legislative intent ascribed by some statement he made in public.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't really matter with Congressmen since they pass laws as a group, not as individuals. Just because one (or even ten) Congressmen have stated a nefarious purpose for passing a law, those statements don't constitute the intent of the entire Congress.

If Congressional debate shows that the majority of Congressmen passed a law for nefarious intent, I could see where that debate (which is a matter of public record) could be used in court, but Congressmen are usually careful not to make obviously unconstitutional or nefarious statements.

You dont want people who you dont even elect and cant get rid of to have that much power.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Pure democracy is a bad thing. One thing that distinguishes our republic from a democracy is that we, intentionally, have people who can reign in the excesses of democracy/mob mentality, and even turn the tide. The Supreme Court has made many anti-majority decisions (eg, legalizing miscegenation) which are now widely accepted by the public.

And, if you get right down to it, a Constitutional amendment could remove Supreme Court justices, so the people do have some level of power. And, of course, Congress can increase the number of Supreme Court seats and let the President pack the court, nullifying the current justices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top