Trumps Ban Blocked By Federal Judge

tsuke said:
glad too see im not the only one outraged by it.
Click to expand...

Now take that feeling and imagine how outraged all intelligent people who wished to keep intact the dignity of the office of potus are with your selection that has made a mockery and degraded that office.
We are outraged ^10th
 
Darth Omar said:
What's the constitutional reasoning? Or is there one?
Click to expand...

im having a hard time finding the actual decision. If anyone could link it I could read thru it.

This is from the Judge in the court room though

“I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based, and rationally based implies, to me, that I have to find, to some extent, it’s grounded in facts and not in fiction,” Robart said during the hearing.

Again not based on consitutionality but rather on whether the order is effective or not. Amazon and Expedia also presented evidence as to how their business could be hurt for the court. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this idiot judge needs to be removed from the bench and have no further ability to be a judge, much less practice law. it is completely irrelevant whether the judge found 'no support' or not, it's the executive branch's authority over who can be allowed entry in to the country and who cannot, not the judiciary
Click to expand...

And the ultimate authority to say what the law is, and therefore the breadth of executive jurisdiction as delineated in the constitution remains with the judiciary. Courts make this call. Do you disagree? If you don't you have to overturn Marbury v Madision and two hundred years progeny. So if he found textual support of a violation the judge is duty bound to hold the law unconstitutional. The danger with the new clown in chief is a constitutional crisis should Dump just willy nilly violate court orders. He's that dangerous. A fascist.
 
Micawber said:
And the ultimate authority to say what the law is, and therefore the breadth of executive jurisdiction as delineated in the constitution remains with the judiciary. Courts make this call. Do you disagree? If you don't you have to overturn Marbury v Madision and two hundred years progeny. So if he found textual support of a violation the judge is duty bound to hold the law unconstitutional. The danger with the new clown in chief is a constitutional crisis should Dump just willy nilly violate court orders. He's that dangerous. A fascist.
Click to expand...

!!!! marbury vs madison tells the court to stick to constitutionality and not to questions of effectivity!!!

in fact even if they were all midnight appointments all the case looked at was whether or not the appointments were procedurally correct. When they were they were allowed to go thru.

They did not decide and should not have on whether midnight appointments were the right thing to do.
 
tsuke said:
!!!! marbury vs madison tells the court to stick to constitutionality and not to questions of effectivity!!!
Click to expand...

I didn't adopt your silly efficacy frame of reference in my comments, dummy. Straw man much? In fact Marbury speaks of the role as to expound and interpret the law. It is not a textualist written decision.
 
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW! said:
He's a GWB appointee. This is back when Republicans were conservatives, and not fascists.
Click to expand...

I agree. It will only be in retrospect that history records this mini epoch as that in which the US was ruled by John Birch, KNow nothing fascists. Indeed the comparisons to European fascism are apt. All that remains are the trains, gassing and corpse lined trenches. We have a potus fully comfortable saying "torture works" and that a first nuclear use is not off the table, etc etc
 
tsuke said:
im having a hard time finding the actual decision. If anyone could link it I could read thru it.

This is from the Judge in the court room though

“I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based, and rationally based implies, to me, that I have to find, to some extent, it’s grounded in facts and not in fiction,” Robart said during the hearing.

Again not based on consitutionality but rather on whether the order is effective or not. Amazon and Expedia also presented evidence as to how their business could be hurt for the court. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality.
Click to expand...

I'll check my westlaw for it.
 
Micawber said:
Now take that feeling and imagine how outraged all intelligent people who wished to keep intact the dignity of the office of potus are with your selection that has made a mockery and degraded that office.
We are outraged ^10th
Click to expand...

Dude, we went through that for 8 whole years.
 
tsuke said:
im having a hard time finding the actual decision. If anyone could link it I could read thru it.

This is from the Judge in the court room though

“I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based, and rationally based implies, to me, that I have to find, to some extent, it’s grounded in facts and not in fiction,” Robart said during the hearing.

Again not based on consitutionality but rather on whether the order is effective or not. Amazon and Expedia also presented evidence as to how their business could be hurt for the court. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality.
Click to expand...

If the ruling is basically a policy judgement it should be overturned by a higher court.
 
tsuke said:
im having a hard time finding the actual decision. If anyone could link it I could read thru it.

This is from the Judge in the court room though

“I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based, and rationally based implies, to me, that I have to find, to some extent, it’s grounded in facts and not in fiction,” Robart said during the hearing.

Again not based on consitutionality but rather on whether the order is effective or not. Amazon and Expedia also presented evidence as to how their business could be hurt for the court. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Efficacy enters into constitutionality when discussing interstate commerce clause or takings clause. There are many judicial "tests" that bear upon efficacy.
 
Micawber said:
Efficacy enters into constitutionality when discussing interstate commerce clause or takings clause. There are many judicial "tests" that bear upon efficacy.
Click to expand...

And in this case, the ability to see into the future. Can we impeach him when a refugee commits a terrorist act?

ISIS on record for trying to infiltrate the ranks of the refugees.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this idiot judge needs to be removed from the bench and have no further ability to be a judge, much less practice law. it is completely irrelevant whether the judge found 'no support' or not, it's the executive branch's authority over who can be allowed entry in to the country and who cannot, not the judiciary
Click to expand...
You're not wrong!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Immigration law is passed by the legislature and subject to the constitution. The executive does not have all the power in the world to invent whatever immigration regulations he wants. And the law could easily take away all such discretion from the executive if it wanted.
 
6b05d38db3bee7c9a5baf085e2a04823.jpg


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top