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

poll

#261

I think the quotes speak for themselves, but you’re free to submit your own reinterpretation.

Scott v Dred is considered the worst decision in all of the Supreme Court; it was all politics, and part of the reason Lincoln wanted to enter politics. It contested Congress trying to limit slavery. Court judges were working against what Congress, the people’s representatives, were enacting by the people who voted for them.

Similarly, the people voted for Trump to keep us safe from terrorism, put a cap on illegal immigration. The Democrats are in the worst shape at all levels of representative government (federal and state legislators, governors) since the 1920s, and yet one Democrat is able to defy Congressional and President elections (about 521 people’s representatives), deciding a case guided only by his own policy preferences, opinions, Democrat policies, and moral objections instead of judicial review, looking at the objective law and precedent, which doesn’t give him permission at all to act here.

Clearly, there needs to be reform, the President can only appoint good judges, but Congress needs to do more of its part to maintain checks-and-balances, by changing the district courts and impeachment if need be. Robart is a perfect example of a judge who needs to be impeached for improperly deciding case, making an example for others. He’s got his eye on political outcomes and trying to stop a president and the electorate he disagrees with rather than keeping his nose in the law where it belongs.

Justice Chase was impeached in 1801 for exactly this reason:

“tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan.”

I have no idea what interests you about pirates. The difference between the Islamic pirates and infidel (you mean Western?) pirates is that the Islamic pirates were backed by their nations, which we went after during the Barbary Wars, and it worked.


#262

Wouldn’t that make them privateers?

Anyway, I’m pretty sure they didn’t speak with a Bristol erhua. Although I can almost imagine them yelling “Allah akbarrrr, me hearties!”


#263

Scott v. Dred would have been something. (I think you mean Dred Scott v. Sandford.)

You are only the second person I’ve ever conversed with who believes judges should act according to popular opinion. The first was an extreme leftist. (And I mean extreme!)

I have no idea what interests you about pirates. The difference between the Islamic pirates and infidel (you mean Western?) pirates is that the Islamic pirates were backed by their nations, which we went after during the Barbary Wars, and it worked.

I was interested because your original statement

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. Washington couldn’t do anything because our navy wasn’t built up yet. But by the time of Jefferson, he said, enough of this, this is for the birds (and Europeans), but American’s ain’t gonna pay ransom for safe passage, and thus we fought the Barbary Wars and Europe benefited from American leadership when we were only 20 years old, and continue to do so.

implied they were motivated by jihadist ideology because they hated American freedom and so on. (“Those Americans let their women walk around unveiled! We’d better attack their ships!”) I’ve never heard such a claim before, so if you can elaborate, please do.

I’m not interested in discussing the history of piracy (and privateering) in general, but if you truly believe state support of piracy is purely a religious phenomenon, I think you have some reading to do.


#264

[quote=“yyy, post:263, topic:157785, full:true”]
You are only the second person I’ve ever conversed with who believes judges should act according to popular opinion. The first was an extreme leftist. (And I mean extreme!)[/quote]
It’s opposite. The legislative branch are elected by the people and make law according to the fashion of the times, they should be the most progressive branch of government. The judges are not elected at all; they are supposed to look at the law objectively, at tradition, precedent, which has the effect of being more conservative, an anchor, slowing down movements that are too progressive. WHich is why they have lifetime appointments and considered independent. If judges were all political like Robart, we should be electing them too! They have too much power and deference as unelected officials to not be objective.

This judge is activist though, he isn’t anchored in tradition at all; he’s trying to outcompete the President’s agenda with his own agenda only. The President is acting completely legally, he could have done it in better ways, but it’s completely legal with powers given him by Congress. The judge is questioning these powers originating and used by the legislative and executive branch. But he has no Constitutional precedent for doing so. You can see he’s trying during the arguments, but in fact refugees and immigrants are not citizens covered by our Constitution. There’s no precedent for covering them. It’s very extreme step for a judge to defy both branches of government acting as they should on the will of the people when there is nothing in the law or Constitution to act on, when there is no judicial objection, only personal.

[quote]I was interested because your original statement

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. Washington couldn’t do anything because our navy wasn’t built up yet. But by the time of Jefferson, he said, enough of this, this is for the birds (and Europeans), but American’s ain’t gonna pay ransom for safe passage, and thus we fought the Barbary Wars and Europe benefited from American leadership when we were only 20 years old, and continue to do so.

implied they were motivated by jihadist ideology because they hated American freedom and so on. (“Those Americans let them women walk around unveiled! We’d better attack their ships!”) I’ve never heard such a claim before, so if you can elaborate, please do.

I’m not interested in discussing the history of piracy (and privateering) in general, but if you truly believe state support of piracy is purely a religious phenomenon, I think you have some reading to do.[/quote]
The Corsairs enslaved Christians, and it was forbidden to enslave Muslims, so Muslim ships weren’t targeted; certainly there was a religious aspect to this. Some Christians gave in and converted to Islam to be freed, but were usually unable to return to their country after doing so. As for unveiled women, they veiled them themselves and placed them in harems. Attractive Christian boys were forced as sex slaves for prominent eminent Muslims.

Many countries, especially Denmark, gave them very profitable rewards for ransom, which provided fodder to continue the practice. Cervantes had tried to escape slavery 4 times before he was ransomed. He has many stories in Don Quixote about slavery and ransoms on the Barbary Coast, I’ve read them. Also Canterbury Tales have some stories to that order. They aren’t totally fiction, they have a basis.

Terrorists still engage in hostage-taking for some sort of ransom, usually for prisoner exchange. Obama traded a deserter for 5 hard-core Taliban terrorists, for example.


#265

You are unanimously disagreed with, for now.

About the pirates, it’s the choice of that particular phrase that intrigues me, because it means you’re using a modern phenomenon to explain a historical phenomenon for which I thought historians already had satisfactory explanations, like if someone says Joan of Arc was an LGBTQ activist because she took on a male role and wore men’s clothing. Novel ways of looking at history may teach us much, but modern concepts often have implications that are difficult to apply precisely to historical contexts. :2cents:

So, next time I watch a pirate film I will be absolutely terrified (unless they’re infidels of course).


#266

[quote=“yyy, post:265, topic:157785, full:true”]
You are unanimously disagreed with, for now.[/quote]
They weren’t ruling on the legality of the order, they just voted that it was necessary to keep restraining order until the law is looked at. On the legality, probably vote 2-1. I don’t doubt they will win this route, but only because too many judges are corrupt and tilt the balance-of-power unfairly to them.

Well, there’s nothing new under the sun. I do happen to think history applies to us. Some people think that we evolve in such a way that obviates or vitiates history and its lessons, application, I don’t subscribe to that.

Joan of Arc was a bit of a tomboy, such personalities are as old as Adam and Eve. To say she was a lesbian activist is a stretch. Such activism and attitudes were not unknown in historical times, but not in her situation and country. If she were born in different culture and not dedicated herself to God, she may very well have been as it fits her personality. She loved getting in the heat of battle. Many women like that in the army. Some of them are lesbian and others not at all.

Islamic Terrorism I believe is the same across the ages. They didn’t have sophisticated weaponry to explode our towers and cause serious injury like today, or they would have tried it. They were reliant on the shipbuilding technology the West developed, which didn’t quite allow the terrorism we know today.

They did invade Europe coasts and captured slaves. Being a slave in a harem might fill one with a horror that makes you wish you had died in 911. Certainly Europeans were familiar with these raids and stories, and were filled with horror enough that their governments paid protection money to prevent it. It was still terrorism in effect.


#267

[quote=“jotham, post:266, topic:157785, full:true”]
They weren’t ruling on the legality of the order, they just voted that it was necessary to keep restraining order until the law is looked at.[/quote]
I know, but your posts until this one have been conflating the two questions, claiming the restraining order is unquestionably wrong because it’s part of an attempt to destroy presidential authority and so on.

The appeal decision contradicts your assertion that the constitution does not apply to foreigners:

The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). […]

See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))).

(Btw please note something the media haven’t been emphasizing, the cancelling of all non-diplomatic visas held by those foreigners. When were/are they planning to start the deportations?)

If there’s truly nothing new under the sun, I suppose it works both ways. So, next time I hear of a terror attack I will say to myself, damn, the pirates strike again.

The Pirate Party should be renamed the Terror Party.

Gender identity activists, of course, are Joan of Arcs. (Wait, what’s the gender neutral version of Joan?)

And Joan of Arc was a womansplaining uterus helmet-wearer who would be offended if referred to with the wrong one of 27 pronouns. Is it the same number in French? :ponder:


#268

[quote=“yyy, post:267, topic:157785, full:true”]

[quote=“jotham, post:266, topic:157785, full:true”]
They weren’t ruling on the legality of the order, they just voted that it was necessary to keep restraining order until the law is looked at.[/quote]
I know, but your posts until this one have been conflating the two questions, claiming the restraining order is unquestionably wrong because it’s part of an attempt to destroy presidential authority and so on.[/quote]
I’m not conflating them, you’re trying to conflate them and like I said, keep getting hung up on questions of rhetoric rather than substance. I had just been talking about the legality of the order and then directly after, you mentioned the 3-0 unanimous vote, and I wanted to make clear that wasn’t the legality issue we were just talking about. When Robart first made the order, however, of course I was looking forward concerning the whole outcome, the raison d’etre, the legality of the move, which is what it’s all about.

Well no duh! They have to twist themselves into pretzels and legal wrangling to get their way. They have to grant non-citizens rights so that they can be trampled by Congress, which justifies the Court stepping in to interfere with a President they don’t like. They got their tracks well-covered. No surprise there, just another one of those bags of Democrat tricks again.

But they have to do it by means of the substantive due process clause, which has been controversial since Judge Taney used it in Dred Scott, which is the most controversial decision ever. That’s precisely how they produce rabbits out of their hats. This is how they legislate from the bench – Democrats, not Republicans. And this case is just another great example. They can find any right they want using the 5th and 14 amendments, even though the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it specifically, they just wave their wand and puff, magic, found another right that Congress and Executive can’t make a law against.

Originalists, Republicans for example, criticize substantive due process and don’t engage in it, for respect of balance-of-powers. Judge Oliver Wender Holmes gives an eloquent criticism:

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. Yet I can think of no narrower reason that seems to me to justify the present and the earlier decisions to which I have referred. Of course the words due process of law, if taken in their literal meaning, have no application to this case; and while it is too late to deny that they have been given a much more extended and artificial signification, still we ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the States, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court’s own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the States may pass.

That’s the problem, when Democrats make up a majority in any court, they use that clause and can snap their fingers and win any case against legislatures or executives. It gives them carte blanche. And it can be seen so particularly clearly in this case, coz it’s just common sense that Congress has power to determine or limit immigration. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot as they take on legislative powers that are obviously not at stake in courts.

At first, the court was much more subtle and sparing about using the clause and just used it when they really needed it, for fear of overstepping it and people waking up to it, and began using a little bit more starting in 1930s, but this case is really extraordinary. It deals with our national sovereignty. The Democrats have lost elections big time, and they are ravenously mad, they are overreaching and overabusing this clause to arrogate more power to themselves, and as they do, there will be a reaction. I think this is the first step, this will keep happening, since it’s the only way they can hold on to their power after losing so big. I firmly believe as Democrats keep this up, there’s gonna be major reform of the court system, which is good, long overdue, I thought the abuses had been already huge enough.

The other extraordinary thing is the judge is trying to get in Trump’s head, guessing that he is racist because of campaign statements intending to limit immigration, so that they can get evidence to act on this, which they wouldn’t have otherwise. . But judges only look at the document, which is objective, not guess what’s in people’s mind, which is so subjective. They’re striving to fit a square peg through a round hole all throughout this case to make it work out, showing their bias.

Transport someone from the 1700s or 1800s to today, and explain terrorism by their point of reference, the Barbary pirates, and it woudn’t take long, they’ll understand in a jiffy.


#269

The first thing they’d probably tell you is you have nothing to explain to them about terrorism given that Native American terrorism was a daily part of the lives of many Americans in those days. Their take on Middle Eastern terrorism on U.S. soil probably wouldn’t be what you expect either:

[quote]So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. . . . And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. . . .

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.[/quote] – From George Washington’s Farewell Address to the Nation, read annually before the U.S. Senate on his birthday


#270

I’m confused why you quote this? Washington isn’t saying you can’t be proud to be American. He was warning Americans not to think any European country was worthy of emulation for our new country, we didn’t want to be another Europe, even most of us came from there, and might prefer our birthright country as example of what America should be. I think we did a good job of taking that advice and took on our own identity, independent, rugged individuals, and proud of it. It’s Democrats who try to make us more European and socialist.


#271

Washington was warning against those “ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens” tirelessly trying to rope America into “fixing” the Barbary Coast, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and other distant lands because it was a fool’s errand. Unfortunately America’s military-industrial messiah complex won that battle for American hearts and minds a long time ago though.


#272

If Americans are going to continue agitating for a Second Civil War over the Originalist Question, I have a less drastic (or more drastic?) solution: hold a referendum. Amend the constitution to declare, once and for all, that it’s either “living” or “dead”. (Imagine the confusion when people ask, “Are you pro-life?”)

Have fun explaining to your time tourists that the Ottomans are vital allies, even though they lost Arabia long ago and can no longer pull strings for you in Southeast Asia. Did they even apologize for failing to rein in the Berbers?


#273

Most Americans won’t have a clue what “living Constitution” means. Those that do will know the real question is do you want legislation without representation by nine unelected, unaccountable public officials with lifetime tenure or do you want to claw your way back to government of the deplorables, by the deplorables, for the deplorables?


#274

But Americans can’t even agree on the definition of deplorable, so there’s no hope. Just sell your house, buy a ship and search for treasure on distant islands. :island:

Meanwhile in Canada, Steve Paikin proves (unlinke some media personalities) he knows the correct style of address for a baron, even if he only uses it to be cheeky.

Highlight of the interview: Donald Trump is “never coarse or vulgar.” :rainbow: :grinning: :rainbow: :grinning: :rainbow: :grinning:

And here’s the full interview with former W speechwriter David Frum explaining the four types of Trump supporters and why he doesn’t agree with the optimism of his old pal the ex-Privy Councillor.


#275

Ha, you’re taking too much liberty with that quote, inserting and filling in too much of your ideas with only a sprinkle of Washington. Not to mention anachronous.


#276

If Trump stays 8 years, being aware of the issue, he’ll do a lot to balance it, and hopefully not horsetrading with Senators, like Bush, which is how we got that corrupted gem Robart.
Congress does need to do more, though. I wish they weren’t afraid to impeach. It would spread shock waves in the judiciary, and phase the democrats.


#277

[quote=“jotham, post:275, topic:157785”]Ha, you’re taking too much liberty with that quote, inserting and filling in too much of your ideas with only a sprinkle of Washington. Not to mention anachronous.
[/quote]

The Senate knows what America’s founding father meant:

[quote]Not a single senator was present on the chamber floor when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) began the 150th annual reading of President George Washington’s farewell address on Monday afternoon.

Only Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who was sitting on the dais performing his duty of acting Senate Pro Tempore, about 20 Senate pages, and a few dozen visitors were around to hear the speech, which began at 2:15 p.m. and usually runs about 45 minutes.[/quote]


#278

Says the pirate hunter. :stuck_out_tongue:


#279

I’ve never heard about this before, the tradition, or your interpretation of Senator’s not sticking around because it’s somehow “antimilitary.” So this is kind of a Cato position of no military involvement – aren’t they Austrian school thinkers?

But Washington wasn’t saying no wars period, he’s talking about getting involved in war just because we follow some trusted ally to help them further their interests, but doesn’t help us at all, like getting involved in European Wars because we identify strongly with a country. It may have been an issue then because the French helped us fight the Revolution, (only because they wanted to stick it to the British), and perhaps Americans thought we owed them, as Europe was being polarized by the French Revolution, which some Americans (like Thomas Paine) mistakenly thought was similar to our fight for liberty and independence. Just as Thomas Paine got Americans up in arms ready to fight for our own independence, he was trying to get us excited about French Revolution, but Washington and Jefferson were like No, their liberty isn’t the same as ours. In fact, it turned out opposite, they got tyranny under Napoleon and we would have been better off helping the British fight them if we were truly acting in our interests. But the French helped us, so better that we just sat that one out.

You mention the Barbary War, but Washington started our navy (our first military industrial complex) so that we could deal with the problem.

Vietnam? Were we helping the French out on that one? Or was it solely because South Vietnam was our ally? It was an American interest to stop the spread and expansion of Communism by China/Russia, and no other country would take the lead. You may or may not agree, but it would be inappropriate to quote Washington…the situation isn’t the same.

Afghanistan? That was totally in our interests as we were rooting out the government who hosted the terrorists responsible for 911. Same for Iraq, certainly we weren’t acting on behalf of some other ally whose benefit was furthered but didn’t further ours. Isn’t that what Washington was saying? He wasn’t anti-military, he was a realist, he was a general, a leader in the American Revolution, he didn’t live in a fairytale; he favored peace as anyone does, but he wasn’t a naive pacifist.


#280

While some are still discussing and comparing past and present, others already prepare for his swift removal including his gang.

Back on topic: he’ll be out soon!