| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| [NEWS] President Annoying Orange's travel ban still halted by federal court |
| << < (15/27) > >> |
| otto-san:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on February 10, 2017, 02:21:06 PM ---A ruling has been made by the 9th circuit that the ban won't be upheld. This is being taken further and will most likely reach the Supreme Court where it will be passed. The 9th circuit has a history of making judgements based on their political agenda. I agree that a rework of the judicial system would be ineffective therefore the judges need to be replaced with those who don't bring political basis to the bench which is supposed to be above that and adherent strictly to the law. --- End quote --- maybe i misunderstood the current situation, but regardless, the point stands that clearing out a court because it ruled unfavorably would very clearly be at odds with the philosophy of checks and balances. accusations of political bias are nebulous and hard to prove; if the court presents a viable legal opinion in its ruling then you are essentially punishing courts for interpreting law the wrong way, which is a power that lies exclusively in the courts to begin with. you don't want to get congress or the president in on the business of interpreting their own legislation and orders |
| Corderlain:
--- Quote from: IkeTheGeneric on February 10, 2017, 02:32:20 PM ---Well good job, because this travel ban managed to inconvenience ourselves more than it prevented terror. It's a true testament to how truly stupid and wasteful this whole war on terror is in the first place. --- End quote --- That has nothing to do with the ban's legality. --- Quote from: otto-san on February 10, 2017, 02:32:27 PM ---maybe i misunderstood the current situation, but regardless, the point stands that clearing out a court because it ruled unfavorably would very clearly be at odds with the philosophy of checks and balances. accusations of political bias are nebulous and hard to prove; if the court presents a viable legal opinion in its ruling then you are essentially punishing courts for interpreting law the wrong way, which is a power that lies exclusively in the courts to begin with. you don't want to get congress or the president in on the business of interpreting their own legislation and orders --- End quote --- The court wouldn't be cleared out because it ruled unfavorably, the court should be cleared because it continues to interject its personal political beliefs into what is supposed to be a sterile unfeeling to the letter inactment of the law. |
| Nonnel:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on February 10, 2017, 02:30:11 PM ---Then why have the previous four presidents passed bans with zero political pushback? Precedence has been set for 20+ years. This is a blatantly political move by the supposedly apolitical judiciary branch. --- End quote --- seems like you should be blaming the courts from the previous four presidents and not from now, who are following the law as it's written |
| Corderlain:
--- Quote from: Nonnel on February 10, 2017, 02:35:56 PM ---seems like you should be blaming the courts from the previous four presidents and not from now, who are following the law as it's written --- End quote --- The law as it's written is decidedly unclear on the presidents ability to restrict immigration based on national security. You're excerpt talks about immigration bans based on personal traits. In the case of national security, an immigration ban would still be enforced by the president. This is only strengthen by the courts lack of action in previous years on the same matter. I will admit, this is very up in the air by the book. However, precedence is the key factor in all matters shakey. |
| Snaked_Snake:
--- Quote from: King Tøny on February 10, 2017, 02:00:04 PM ---If Obama set this travel ban it wouldn't be halted. --- End quote --- Tony for gods sake stop bringing up "if someone else did it no one would care!" It's not true and it makes you look like more of an idiot |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |