Blood on the Judges' Shoulders

[Caroljo]

She sent me a number of nasty PMs in the past. I did not reply.

Really? I thought she just said she doesn't PM any of us! Lol! She PM'd me once...just because she had to prove a point (which failed).

 

[Jen]

Really? I thought she just said she doesn't PM any of us! Lol! She PM'd me once...just because she had to prove a point (which failed).

She lies.

 

[Queen Titania]

PMs are confidential, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Queen Titania]

You've sent me PM's as well, and I believe even the Queen has; nevertheless, they were generally well mannered PM's.

I don't know if I have ever PMed you BP - if so I doubt it was about anything other than asking after you - I've communicated with a lot of people via PM which is most usually about stuff which we can't chat about in the open board because it is just ordinary everyday, unpolitical, chatter - as well as some personal but not necessarily private family stuff which we as human beings naturally share with each other.

The problem with any of us feeling that we have a right to share what has been communicated via PM with others on the open board is that it fuels the political/personal battles - there is therefor a line - for me anyway - that is, out of decency, better not to cross at all.

What anyone one defined group discusses among themselves is one thing but to fuel the fire on the open board is another. Imho that is.

 

[LeilaniMP]

Really? I thought she just said she doesn't PM any of us! Lol! She PM'd me once...just because she had to prove a point (which failed).

Hmmm....it seems she's sent them to a number of us, huh?

*shrug*

I still have have them...saved for entertainment value

 

[Arkady]

Well then, that's fine. From what I've read, Trump won't do anything to change their finding. He can put together policy that covers everything in that EO using the existing laws on the books. However, if anything happens with immigrants that have come into the country as a result of the ruling of the 9th circuit court...........it's on them.

It's bizarre to see the right-wingers telegraphing this intent to blame future terrorist attacks on Americans who uphold the Constitution.

 

[Jen]

It's bizarre to see the right-wingers telegraphing this intent to blame future terrorist attacks on Americans who uphold the Constitution.

Wouldn't be telegraphing anything if they had upheld the Constitution. Unfortunately they chose to legislate from the bench and address things other than what they were supposed to address.

What's bizarre is your lack of understanding of the Constitution. Another choice gone awry.

 

[Arkady]

Wouldn't be telegraphing anything if they had upheld the Constitution.

That's just what they did. We're not talking about something like the infamous Bush v. Gore decision, where the Supreme Court interjected itself into an area that had never before been treated as a federal matter, and then made a controversial one-off decision that invented a whole new concept of law, with a 5-4 vote that didn't even convince all the Republicans. Instead, we're talking about a unanimous appeals court ruling affirming what the lower court had already decided, on the basis of well-established principles of law. There's a reason the ruling was unanimous -- convincing judges appointed by three different presidents, including GW Bush. It's the same reason the argument convinced the district court judge who was also appointed by Bush. The issue of law isn't a tough one in this case. You just call it legislating from the bench because you don't like constraints being put on Trump.

 

[JackDallas]

So someone comes here from Pakistan and shoots up a Christmas party...would that be the judges fault?

Yes

 

[Days]

That's just what they did. We're not talking about something like the infamous Bush v. Gore decision, where the Supreme Court interjected itself into an area that had never before been treated as a federal matter, and then made a controversial one-off decision that invented a whole new concept of law, with a 5-4 vote that didn't even convince all the Republicans. Instead, we're talking about a unanimous appeals court ruling affirming what the lower court had already decided, on the basis of well-established principles of law. There's a reason the ruling was unanimous -- convincing judges appointed by three different presidents, including GW Bush. It's the same reason the argument convinced the district court judge who was also appointed by Bush. The issue of law isn't a tough one in this case. You just call it legislating from the bench because you don't like constraints being put on Trump.

... that and the ruling was total rubbish that did an end run on the Constitution.

9th circuit court = total circus

 

[JackDallas]

That's just what they did. We're not talking about something like the infamous Bush v. Gore decision, where the Supreme Court interjected itself into an area that had never before been treated as a federal matter, and then made a controversial one-off decision that invented a whole new concept of law, with a 5-4 vote that didn't even convince all the Republicans. Instead, we're talking about a unanimous appeals court ruling affirming what the lower court had already decided, on the basis of well-established principles of law. There's a reason the ruling was unanimous -- convincing judges appointed by three different presidents, including GW Bush. It's the same reason the argument convinced the district court judge who was also appointed by Bush. The issue of law isn't a tough one in this case. You just call it legislating from the bench because you don't like constraints being put on Trump.

Everything in your post is bullshit.

 

[Saladin2]

Yes

Probably more like a angry old white man will go on the next rampage...The usual Gun Nut

 

[resident_evil]

So someone comes here from Pakistan and shoots up a Christmas party...would that be the judges fault?

No, it would be an f'ing Muslim's fault. Islamism sucks and should be banned. Sharia should be banned. Do you believe in Sharia? You can't come. Get the f out.

 

[Arkady]

... that and the ruling was total rubbish that did an end run on the Constitution.

9th circuit court = total circus

There's a reason it even convinced a Republican-appointed judge. The issue of law was clear cut. Right-wingers don't like how it came out because it hems in their Dear Leader, but from a legal perspective it was a slam dunk.

 

[Days]

There's a reason it even convinced a Republican-appointed judge. The issue of law was clear cut. Right-wingers don't like how it came out because it hems in their Dear Leader, but from a legal perspective it was a slam dunk.

from a legal perspective, the judges ruled that the state has a right to perceived prosperity that an executive action might hamper. totally nuts. 9th circuit is claiming any state can balk at any federal action if it doesn't like it. slam dunk unconstitutional... from a legal perspective.

 

[Arkady]

from a legal perspective, the judges ruled that the state has a right to perceived prosperity that an executive action might hamper. totally nuts. 9th circuit is claiming any state can balk at any federal action if it doesn't like it. slam dunk unconstitutional... from a legal perspective.

The trial court judge and all three appeals court judges (in total, two Republicans, two Democrats) disagree with you.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

The trial court judge and all three appeals court judges (in total, two Republicans, two Democrats) disagree with you.

The trial court judge and all three appeals court judges (in total, two Republicans, two Democrats) disagree with you.

The judge in Washington state nor the 9th circuit court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.

But you're a lawyer with 19 years experience and you dont know this?

 

[Arkady]

The judge in Washington state nor the 9th circuit court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.

But you're a lawyer with 19 years experience and you dont know this?

View attachment 35238

Feel free to file a "friend of the court" brief for the appeal. To this point, Trump has failed to convince any of the judges to whom he's brought his argument.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

Feel free to file a "friend of the court" brief for the appeal. To this point, Trump has failed to convince any of the judges to whom he's brought his argument.

The text of the law is clear. The judges are political hacks that never even addressed the statute.

Riddle me this "lawyer" boy.....is 8 U.SC. 1098 constitutional or not? Simple question for a "lawyer" with 19 years on the bar.

 

[Days]

The trial court judge and all three appeals court judges (in total, two Republicans, two Democrats) disagree with you.

Not with me, ol' chap, the Constitution.

I'm the last person to care about immigrants and refugees, but how a court can even hear rubbish like this case and then agree with it? they are on a mission.