Another one in a long line of false equivalencies used to justify truly unprecedented behavior. It's one thing to dislike a decision of the court and say so afterwards. To the judges faces at a state of the union address and with some arguments behind your statement. It's quite another to unleash incoherent Twitter rants full of personal attacks on the judges themselves before, during, and after a decision you do not like. How about "if something happens blame the courts!" Are you fucking kidding me? The courts are doing their constitutional jobs and the President is literally setting the masses up to discount everything courts do in case there is some sort of trouble in the future - related or not. Sure, you may recognize that a US Citizens who commits a terrorist attack next week may not be related to this but will everyone?
To borrow a new favorite from the right: Elections have consequences - but so does incendiary language from the most powerful man in the world. I don't disagree with everything Trump does but I do believe that his reckless disregard for any sort of decorum (and the potential consequences of his belligerence) is very dangerous. Call me a snowflake - I won't be offended. But I know a guy who would be, and he's got nukes.
Awesome.
=============== Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Has just called the decision "disgraceful" in another Tweet. Regardless of the ban, his attempts to undermine the judiciary should be roundly criticized from all sides of the political spectrum.
I'll ask you again, have you been under a rock the last 8 years?
It is disgraceful. It's just more of the 9th and their ideology, laws be damned. Wake up
Honest question - did you read the decision?
I have and do not find it one bit political. They literally said (and supported with caselaw references) that the POTUS and executive as well as the legislature usually make the rules on immigration and foreign policy. However (again supported by precedent), their decisions are not unreviewable. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Then they moved on to the actual argument the administration was making - which was to call for an emergency suspension to the stay issued by the lower court due to imminent threats to national security. Once again, the court made a pretty reasonable request (one that YOU should be making too) to be provided with evidence of how this stay causes a security issue. You know what the administration's attorney said? "We don't have such evidence".
Well shit...it seems to me that claiming "this is dangerous" and then saying "we don't know why" kind of doesn't make sense.
Further, the decision showed how the executive order affects constitutional rights of "persons" in the United States (once again supported by precedent). Given that the administration couldn't show how this is in the interest of national security (despite claiming so on Twitter), the court agreed that the administration's case was crap. As was the order itself since it wasn't clear enough and statements by the White House counsel (adjusting how it's enforced...i.e.: no green cards affected) are not the same as an Executive Order signed by the President. If the preceding paragraphs don't make sense to you I'll try a quick summary: "You can't take away constitutional rights without making a compelling case for why you're doing that". The administration has not done that.
If you think this is political I would encourage you to take a chill pill and spend some time actually thinking through the issues.
I do not believe that the ban is reasonable. However, I do believe the President has the right to limit immigration and access. This order was poorly written and execution of it was even worse. The reasonable thing to do would be to rescind it and write one that makes sense AND is defensible. This one accomplished neither. Do you think our President will do the reasonable thing? It appears that the answer to that is "no".
Simply yelling that this is political seems like exactly the thing you're accusing "the other side" from doing. Which, if you read the actual decision, it is not.
The request is out of their jurisdiction. According to this judge:
. Interesting there are 47 other lawsuits across the country on this ban. I find it funny when Obama flagrantly broke the law by giving amnesty to millions of illegals, only one judge had the balls to contest this illegal move.
Interesting there are 47 other lawsuits across the country on this ban. I find it funny when Obama flagrantly broke the law by giving amnesty to millions of illegals, only one judge had the balls to contest this illegal move.
That's the whole beauty of the system we've got in place. He can disagree and if he wants he can sue and pursue it to the highest court...which is where this fight seems to be heading anyway. Obviously, other judges determined that the plaintiffs had standing and that the courts could hear the case. They're making real legal arguments one way or another. Not ridiculous unsupported claims on social media.
Btw, judges don't contest illegal moves - they judge cases brought to them by whoever feels harmed and has standing. If you felt so strongly about Obama's overreach perhaps you should have taken your issues to a court somewhere. I also find it interesting that one of the first executive orders from the new administration has already racked up 47 lawsuits challenging it. Maybe we should jump to the implausible conclusion that the liberals are more litigious and that our courts all over the country lean left. Or we could conclude that this EO was garbage from the start.
Are you suggesting that Obama's alleged illegal orders went unchallenged (to this extent) because conservatives were being nice? Or they decided not to bother because somehow they knew that the (so called liberal) courts were going to shut them down? To me it seems that right leaning snowflakes are butthurt about left leaning snowflakes being taken seriously by the courts. What's so bad about that?
Love how the left are suddenly unhappy when someone questions the judiciary. Where were they when Obama called out the Supreme Court? How about the entire Democratic Caucus and the American media in 2000?
As for the 9th Circus, 61% overturned and 19% vacated. And many feel the numbers are low due to the size of the Circuit and the number of cases that the Supreme Court don't have time to review. Trump may be an idiot but he is right, it will be in court and the 9th Circus will again be overturned.
Rodred wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Has just called the decision "disgraceful" in another Tweet. Regardless of the ban, his attempts to undermine the judiciary should be roundly criticized from all sides of the political spectrum.
I'll ask you again, have you been under a rock the last 8 years?
It is disgraceful. It's just more of the 9th and their ideology, laws be damned. Wake up
Love how you completely ignored the evidence presented to you in another thread showing no equivalence between what Obama said ("I disagree with the ruling") and what Trump has said ("so-called judge", "disgraceful"). Yet here you are again raising that stupid argument. ---------------------------------- "Go yell at an M&M"
Yep, thats definitely what we want from the notional leader if the free world, funny tweets and highschool bitchyness from his closest advisors..............
The thing i have a grudging respect for bith kushner and bannon is that so far they keep their mouths shut.......
Its better to be thought of a fool than open your mouth and prove it........
