| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| [NEWS] President Annoying Orange's travel ban still halted by federal court |
| << < (17/27) > >> |
| Snaked_Snake:
All Muslims are either bombers or potential bombers, they all should be banned even though it is untrue |
| Rally:
--- Quote from: Nonnel on February 10, 2017, 02:42:20 PM ---they must've paid tons to Annoying Orange considering he didn't ban them even though they're the largest exporter of islamic terrorists to the US --- End quote --- Obama didn't put restrictions on Saudi in 2015 either, because they don't come from Saudi. There are no asylum seekers in Saudi because they don't want them. Saudi filters it's terrorist agents through Syria and then sends them to western nations as 'refugees' |
| Scout31:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on February 10, 2017, 02:16:31 PM ---It's entirely legal. The amendment of 65 says nothing about the presidents ability to close borders due to national security concerns. This is the hyper liberal west coast judicial circuit making a play based on political agenda. They've done this before and they will continue to do it. Need to be removed from bench. --- End quote --- Even if that were the case, we have a court system that deals with the extreme judges and their rulings should they be disputable. If the ruling is questionable, appeal it to a higher court. If that's questionable, appeal it to yet another higher court. If those higher courts don't have any issues with it, you're SOL. --- Quote from: Corderlain on February 10, 2017, 02:34:30 PM ---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. --- End quote --- Actually that's exactly what judges should do. They're elected or appointed based on their interpretations of the law and their constituency being in favor of their reading and understanding of it. This happens from both sides, and it's why the supreme court is such a big deal. This works with the system of appeals to balance out anything too extreme, but it's the intention of how the system is set up. The court system isn't some arbitrary floating body of starfishs that you disagree with, judges are people elected or appointed on faith from their constituency. While they're not supposed to inject their own politics into rulings, two judges can interpret things in very different ways, which is why any legal document is so specific. |
| Insert Name Here²:
--- Quote from: Snaked_Snake on February 10, 2017, 02:45:31 PM ---All Muslims are either bombers or potential bombers, they all should be banned even though it is untrue --- End quote --- what What are you trying to address in this post, none of us think or posted anything like this lolwtf |
| Corderlain:
--- Quote from: Nonnel on February 10, 2017, 02:42:20 PM ---they must've paid tons to Annoying Orange considering he didn't ban them even though they're the largest exporter of islamic terrorists to the US --- End quote --- This is my one beef with the ban. Saudi Arabi should have topped the list. --- Quote from: otto-san on February 10, 2017, 02:40:13 PM ---and like i said, the idea of "political bias" in the judiciary is murky. if a decision is made with a clearly outlined legal basis, then the line where something becomes politically motivated is entirely arbitrary. if the court cites public opinion, statistics, etc. in its majority opinion as substance, then that is politics and policy making. if they cite legal precedent (or a lack thereof), acts of congress, the constitution, treaties, etc. then that is a judicial interpretation of law. it is the job of the courts to decide which interpretation is valid, not the executive, and not the legislature. --- End quote --- Thus lies the issue with our current checks and balance system. One of the checks and balances itself has no check nor balance. Who's watching the watchers and all that. --- Quote from: LeisureSuit912 on February 10, 2017, 02:43:58 PM ---lmao keep the tears coming. One of the judges was a conservative appointed by Bush, and even he had the brains to vote against this stupid and useless travel ban. --- End quote --- Establishment interference crosses the political border. Are you ever going to add something intelligent to any discussion you chime into? --- Quote from: Scout31 on February 10, 2017, 02:46:02 PM ---Even if that were the case, we have a court system that deals with the extreme judges and their rulings should they be disputable. If the ruling is questionable, appeal it to a higher court. If that's questionable, appeal it to yet another higher court. If those higher courts don't have any issues with it, you're SOL. Actually that's exactly what judges should do. They're elected or appointed based on their interpretations of the law and their constituency being in favor of their reading and understanding of it. This happens from both sides, and it's why the supreme court is such a big deal. This works with the system of appeals to balance out anything too extreme, but it's the intention of how the system is set up. The court system isn't some arbitrary floating body of starfishs that you disagree with, judges are people elected or appointed on faith from their constituency. While they're not supposed to inject their own politics and bend readings, two judges can interpret things in very different ways, which is why any legal document is so specific. --- End quote --- Which is what's going on. My beef is the continued interference and bias coming from the 9th circuit. This is a decades long issue. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |