[Poll] How Long Will DJ Trump Stay in Office?

poll

#221

@jotham, precedent does matter in civil law systems. But never mind that. The media rarely explain court decisions in detail. Since you’re certain the judge has no precedents to back him up, surely you’ve read the full text of the decision, right? Please tell us where we can read it. :slight_smile:

We dealt with extreme Islam terrorism at the beginning of our nation. Muslim pirates were exacting payments out of merchant ships from the West or be destroyed, and Europe was just taking it under the chin.

This is fascinating. What are the differences between Muslim pirates and infidel pirates? And how does one say “arrr” in Arabic? :ponder:

@Winston_Smith, you’re going to love this:

Long live judicial indpendence! :grinning:


#222

Long live the Supreme People’s Court with its 99.9% conviction rate!


#223

Jotham and alternative facts based on nothing but conjecture.


#224

About that list, all the reports (including yours) say it was released by the White House, yet I can’t find it anywhere on whitehouse.gov. What gives? Could it be… fake news? :eek:


#225

Trump is the executive Branch. He shouldn’t make up his own laws like a dictator, he can only execute laws Congress enacts on immigration, and it was Congress who targeted those nations signed by Obama.

Correction: Congress did give President this authority. Even so, Trump seems to be respecting and strengthening current law and not taking it into his own hands, at least not yet.


#226

[quote=“yyy, post:221, topic:157785, full:true”]
@jotham, precedent does matter in civil law systems. But never mind that. The media rarely explain court decisions in detail. Since you’re certain the judge has no precedents to back him up, surely you’ve read the full text of the decision, right? Please tell us where we can read it. :slight_smile: [/quote]
It isn’t necessary, for example, to read the entire text and arcana of Obamacare to understand what it’s about so as to debate it.

Even so, the US code gives the president power on immigration (which the Constitution gives to Congress), and the judge is apparently questioning this.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


#227

We’re talking about case law. Your claim is that there is no precedent to support the judge’s decision. So where is the decision, and where is the binding precedent that the judge must have ignored?


#228

[quote=“yyy, post:224, topic:157785, full:true”]About that list, all the reports (including yours) say it was released by the White House, yet I can’t find it anywhere on whitehouse.gov. What gives? Could it be… fake news? :eek:
[/quote]Obama was hiding terrorist immigration statistics from the public according to 2016 Department of Justice policy. Jeff Sessions is expected to reverse it when he gets in.

The judge is totally wrong on his facts by saying no one was arrested in those 7 countries. According to Senate Immigration Subcommittee database, which is based on the White House list, 73 people from those countries had been arrested and convicted from 2001 to 2014.

http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born


#229

I didn’t say there was no precedent to support the decision. I said the judge didn’t cite precedent to overturn the law. If he did, you can easily show me. The onus is on you.

If there were precedent, the judge would definitely have used it, he knows how it all works. He also knows Obama’s been hiding this information so it would be hard for anyone to find out. He knows how the system works.


#230

I’m not talking about the list of 7 countries. I’m talking about the list of 72 “under-reported” terrorist attacks including the “under-reported” Bataclan and all that. Why did the White House not release this list on its own website? I’m not even being facetious when I say they’re wasting a valuable resource by not using it to communicate with the public.

I didn’t say there was no precedent to support the decision. I said the judge didn’t cite precedent to overturn the law. If he did, you can easily show me. The onus is on you.

Excuse me. Your claim is that there is no precedent cited by the judge, not that there is no precedent at all. Fine, that’s your claim, with nothing to back it up. Say hello to your own onus. :slight_smile:


#231

But that list of the countries is important because it is a major rationale for the judge’s decision to block the order, which rationale is that no one was ever arrested from those countries. The judge says Trump has to provide rationale for his order, which is wrong, but certainly the judge’s rationale for blocking it is important, and is at fault here.

The list you’re looking for is nowhere on WhiteHouse websites until Sessions gets in because Obama was hiding all this as it makes him and his policies look bad. It was released by other means and CNN has admitted the genuineness of the list and attacks:

Giving details of the list, CNN said as per White House there are as many as 78 such incidents. “It’s a head-scratcher as several of these, we here at CNN and other international news outlets, covered these extensively,” CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta said.

“All of these, you’ll recall, we covered extensively. It’s puzzling as to why the White House would include these attacks on this list when they were covered for days on end,” he alleged.

[quote=“yyy, post:230, topic:157785, full:true”]Excuse me. Your claim is that there is no precedent cited by the judge, not that there is no precedent at all. Fine, that’s your claim, with nothing to back it up. Say hello to your own onus. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/02/04/sauce-for-the-goose-judge-cites-anti-obama-ruling-to-block-trumps-immigration-order/2/#1fb0e7c53c9b

There is no precedent for the judge opposing or overturning this law:

The judge also asked if a federal court had ever overturned an executive order on immigration due to equal protection concerns. No, Ferguson said.

And here is the part about the religious test the judge opposes, which is established by Congressional law, not Trump’s order:

Judge Robart’s order blocks the Trump administration from enforcing most of the executive order, including Section 5 as it pertains to granting preferences to members of religious minorities. While the order itself doesn’t mention Islam or any other religion Trump’s public statements suggested he wanted to give preference to Christian minority refugees. The Washington AG argued this was an unconstitutional demonstration of animus toward Muslims.

He’s overreaching by miles.


#232

The list you’re looking for is nowhere on WhiteHouse websites until Sessions gets in because Obama was hiding all this that makes him and his policies look bad.

Hey man, I am not defending any former presidents on anything. I’m asking why a website under Trump’s control, listing “Speeches & Remarks, Press Briefings, Statements & Releases” and so on, including for Tuesday, doesn’t have an item of major public interest that all the media say was released Monday by the Trump White House, and you’re telling me it’s all Obama’s fault? Whatever :roll:

Now is this the decision we’re talking about?

No, he’s opining against current law. But he needs to cite references, he can’t just use his own head. The German judicial system is like Napoleonic code, not our English system which is based on stare decisis, precedents, especially when seeking to overturn law.

It doesn’t overturn anything. It’s a temporary restraining order, issued because the plaintiffs risk “irreparable harm” if the EO is enforced before the court has had time for a full hearing. In other words, it’s a procedural thing, like denying bail to a flight risk, but in reverse. And it cites plenty of precedents for the purpose at hand (without seeking to settle the question that everyone really wants settled – whether the EO is constitutional or not).

What precedents will be cited when the order is actually overturned or upheld? We’ll have to wait and see. :popcorn:


#233

[quote=“yyy, post:232, topic:157785, full:true”]It doesn’t overturn anything. It’s a temporary restraining order, issued because the plaintiffs risk “irreparable harm” if the EO is enforced before the court has had time for a full hearing. In other words, it’s a procedural thing, like denying bail to a flight risk, but in reverse. And it cites plenty of precedents for the purpose at hand (without seeking to settle the question that everyone really wants settled – whether the EO is constitutional or not).

What precedents will be cited when the order is actually overturned or upheld? We’ll have to wait and see. :popcorn:
[/quote]
You seem to always get hung up on small points of rhetoric. I never said it was overturned, he is trying to overturn it, of course you have to premeditate and discuss these things before you go justifying and issuing restraining orders. He’s got nothing, you can tell that from the discussions in the video and news sources, he’s dry on citations, or he would have already used them to justify the restraining order.

During oral arguments over the Trump immigration plan, Judge Robart asked Ferguson if the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment apply to foreign visa holders who haven’t set foot on U.S. soil. Not necessarily, Ferguson acknowledged.


#234

I recommend reading the full text.

We’ll see how dry he is soon enough. :slight_smile:


#235

Well then, you can blame the Democrats in the Senate for blocking and delaying every one of Trump’s cabinet, not on substance, but for politics, or they could get to their jobs quicker.


#236

It hasn’t to do with how dry they are. If they are Democrats, they will decide according to their hearts and politics, pulling rabbits out of their hats, and precedents won’t matter to them if they be lacking, like it matters with Republicans.

This gets appealed to the 9th circuit, which is the most liberal and maintains it, and then when it goes to the Supreme Court, it may end up a tie 4-4, which would leave the nationwide injunction in place.

The Democrats know how to win in the courts with Democrat judges not caring about precedent, so we already know the probable outcome of this. That’s why Democrats judge-shop, they aren’t concerned about particular plaintiffs and care less about any one case, but their eyes are focused on changing law by route of the 9th circuit, even though they lost elections big time. This is how they keep their power, and it’s dishonest.

That’s why I said Congress needs to rein it in and take back their power granted by the Constitution, which Democrat judges keep trying to usurp.


#237

We all know how troubling this issue is.

Appointed by George W. Bush


#238

Jotham you are getting your arse badly kicked by YYY in this one but you keep coming back for more. :slight_smile:

None of your claims have stood up. You are hopelessly partisan.

Your wingmen have checked out already as they know they will be nursing a hangover tomorrow but you keep coming back for one more drink.

The orange man is in the White House now own him and his decisions.


#239

Don’t be fooled by Bush appointing him, with respect to lower district court judges, there is often this horse-trading with Senators involving judges, this judge was introduced by Washington’s Democrat Senator at the time, Patty Murray. He is liberal through and through.

Even so, Trump will have to do like Lincoln, who planned to overturn slavery slowly by appointing judges true to the Constitution instead of politics as a starting point, one at a time. Hopefully Trump will stop this horsetrading with Senators and appoint good judges on the lower courts for their own sake. Bush wasn’t the smartest president at political strategy. But he was quite magnanimous.


#240

And unanimously endorsed by the Senate iirc.

Lincoln, eh? :ponder: Recently, there was an article somewhere claiming Trump is the new Andrew Jackson. I wonder how true that will turn out to be.

Anyway, I hope I don’t come across as partisan, whether I’m kicking something or not. I just couldn’t resist joining this thread when you brought up 18th century pirates. :skull_crossbones: :smile: