Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you are being ruled by an unelected president who lost for 3 million votes. and his decisions are going to have more effect on your life than non elected judges.
We are actually a Republic electing a president through our electoral college. As such Trump is the President of the US for better or worse. However, the popular vote does indicate that some caution and finesse in governing is in order... is Trump capable of doing such? It remains to be seen.
I think all the ranking members of the branches can change/impact lives significantly. The powers of the Exec Branch are concentrated in a single person; President.. that is by design. It also makes him cannon fodder for criticism... but often misplaced criticism.
Those with "Green Cards" etc. were not intended to be restricted. That was the error of those who were implementing the Order. Not a flaw in Trump's order, although perhaps it would have been wise to stipulate that in the E.O. He really didn't need to.
Trump just needs to change the EO to address his deficiencies, he should be glad that the courts saved him from himself. Instead of crying foul he should meet with his security people and add in the proposed changes, better yet just put in the proposed changes to the Visa and refugee programs now rather than waiting 90-120 days.
I strongly disagree with stopping the refugee program but it's his right, he has broad powers regarding immigration but I don't see that any particular security threat that requires this drastic action. Lacking any particular evidence I believe this is just typical Trump hyperbole. It's still his right to impose restrictions to immigration even if it's contrived but his powers are not limitless.
Rather than crying foul he just needs to address the necessary changes rather than creating a court drama.
However I'm the one that listed specific cases and pattern of decision behavior... you have not. Your correspondence with me in this thread is full of assertions with nothing specific to back it up.
However, I'm the one being intellectually dishonest....
I'm not sure what exactly you want me to show. You listed a couple of Supreme Court decisions which overturned previous decisions. How does that prove that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution?
Was the first decision the unconstitutional one, and the second one was the proper constitutional one? Or maybe it was the other way around?
Nor does it prove that the Supreme Court isn't politicized, or that it doesn't overreach. In fact, the very existence of so many overturned decisions, actually proves my case.
In one of the most-famous Supreme Court rulings, Dred Scott v. Sanford, the courts had ruled that Dred Scott had no standing in his case. And that the laws in the free states, which said that anyone who entered them would become a free-man, were unconstitutional.
Was that decision the correct one? What about the "one-drop rule" in Plessy v. Ferguson? Or Brown v. Board of Education? Why were those decisions even made? The Constitution?
The issue here, is not that you honestly think the Supreme Court's rulings are Constitutional, or that Judicial Review is even in the Constitution. But rather, that you think the Supreme Court, overall, is basically a "force for good".
Thus, your entire argument merely rests on the principle, "The end justifies the means".
When you say that you do not believe that the Supreme Court overreaches, as a matter of principle, you are wrong.
But you aren't making a judgement based on principle, you are making a judgement based on value.
Based on your concept of value, the Supreme Court is only overreaching, if you believe its decisions are "harmful".
In my concept of overreach, any time the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is in conflict with the obvious meaning of the Constitution, they are overreaching.
A great example of this is the recent ruling on same-sex marriage. There is no possible way that any sane person should believe that the 14th amendment made prohibitions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. No sane person believes that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, which existed in every state in the country until only a decade ago, had been unconstitutional for literally hundreds of years, and no one realized it.
To me, this is an obvious case of "Judicial overreach". But, that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with the outcome. I can agree with the outcome, and still think the Supreme Court made the wrong decision.
I support some of the intent behind the EO but Trump only has Trump to blame for the drama that occurred from a badly crafted EO. He should put his ego aside, determine areas of acceptable compromise, draft a new one taking the court's ruling into affect, consult his legal team, and push through again. Stop wasting time pushing the original EO through the system.
Congress retains the authority to bring impeachment against a judge or justice. However, it requires said justice/judge to be in violation of the written law. In this case, the ruling was 3-0... so Trump would need to convince Congress to bring on impeachment charges against not one but three judges.
Highly unlikely.
PS> I admire Giuliani's contribution to NYC... but I think Trump needs to slap him around a little for his big mouth.
I think he's doing what you suggest, rewriting the EO to remedy the problems. I also expect the 'extreme' vetting program to accomplish most of what Trump wants to accomplish. Meanwhile a judge on the 9th circuit requested a review by the whole court of the 3-panel decision. This temporary setback is great fodder for his opponents, but he'll get what he wants before its over.
Again, its not coincidence you feel so strongly about the illegitimacy/politicization of the judicial system with the recent 9th decision.
You obviously do not know me(many of the others on the forum do most-likely recognize me though). If you knew me, you would realize that I have been drumming the same tune practically since I came here back in 2009.
If anything, my hostility towards the Supreme Court, and more-broadly, the government, has actually mellowed through the years.
I advise you to click my name, and go to "All threads started by Redshadowz".
I'm not sure what exactly you want me to show. You listed a couple of Supreme Court decisions which overturned previous decisions. How does that prove that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution?
The two SC rulings overturned by previous decisions that I listed were to counter your assertion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Obviously the Supreme Court isn't going to rule against itself. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The Supreme Court did overturn previous rulings, but only as a reflection of the change in the court itself.
To demonstrate that the SC does rule against itself AND that the overruling wasn't just a reflection f the change in court itself. Both overturned (there are more) cases were overruled not only by the SC against it's previous decision but almost by the same presiding justices.
You are taking things out of context... and with that.. I lost interest in the rest of the post.
as one legal advisor commented- this last court encounter does NOT go away- he will still be subpoenaed to a court appearance to explain his part- and even- that call to Juliani- He cannot simply make it go away.
I think the 4th judge is to put the nail in the coffin-
It is obvious he hates the Feds and law- and uses it for his convenience- but he told us that - payback time-
I think he's doing what you suggest, rewriting the EO to remedy the problems. I also expect the 'extreme' vetting program to accomplish most of what Trump wants to accomplish. Meanwhile a judge on the 9th circuit requested a review by the whole court of the 3-panel decision. This temporary setback is great fodder for his opponents, but he'll get what he wants before its over.
I'm also interested in the EO exit criteria. One of the things that concern me with EO (since it emanates from the President and only the president... by design.. rightfully so) is that it maybe extended for long periods or indefinitely.
If the time period expires and the new vetting program doesn't meet Trump's expectations then what is the next step? Extension? ... perhaps indefinitely.
I'm also interested in the EO exit criteria. One of the things that concern me with EO (since it emanates from the President and only the president... by design.. rightfully so) is that it maybe extended for long periods or indefinitely.
If the time period expires and the new vetting program doesn't meet Trump's expectations then what is the next step? Extension? ... perhaps indefinitely.
Any EO is never indefinite- once prez is out- it can be reverted - but not sure this ban is going to work for him, I think extreme vetting will - could make people sit for 4 years and not just 2. and visas and green cards could now go into frozen stage but congress would have to agree- to change any law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
