Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

[2aguy]

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

It is, genius..they are expecting a ruling next week..........twit. The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal...but because Trump did it it isn't legal...those are the very left wing, social justice warriors pretending to be judges that need to be replaced.

OK, little child, state the federal law. And a link. Where did Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer say it would be legal for Obama or Hillary? Either put up or shut up.

Here you go dipshit...it was the argument made by the ACLU and ruled on by the left wing appeals court...

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

This ACLU lawyer is a left wing judge, too?
Excuse me, let me remind you of the comment in question:
"The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal.""

And this is what he actually said:
"""ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”"""

Do any of you idiots actually READ something before you post?

and it doesn't matter if he did...the Constitution..which you claim to know, and the laws created by congress give him the power to do just that....the law.....not the feelings of the judges....

And dipshit.....there are 50 muslim countries in the world......he wants to ban travel from 6 countries with huge terrorism problems...

That leaves 44 muslim countries that can come to the United States regardless of the ban on those 6...including Indonesia, the country with the largest muslim population.......

 

[WaitingFor2020]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

It is, genius..they are expecting a ruling next week..........twit. The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal...but because Trump did it it isn't legal...those are the very left wing, social justice warriors pretending to be judges that need to be replaced.

OK, little child, state the federal law. And a link. Where did Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer say it would be legal for Obama or Hillary? Either put up or shut up.

Here you go dipshit...it was the argument made by the ACLU and ruled on by the left wing appeals court...

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

This ACLU lawyer is a left wing judge, too?
Excuse me, let me remind you of the comment in question:
"The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal.""

And this is what he actually said:
"""ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”"""

Do any of you idiots actually READ something before you post?

Do you understand they can't rule on what Trump said during the campaign--only what the EO said???? God you're stupid.

Nope, sorry, you're the dumbass here:
Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban
Judges Weigh Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Remarks at Appeals Court Hearing
Federal judges in a travel ban challenge scrutinized Trump's previous comments on Muslims

White House erases Trump's call for a Muslim ban from website minutes after reporter brings it up

Appeals Court Focuses on Trump’s Travel Ban Comments

 

[pdxex]

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

"...the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims."

Exactly. He is stupider than a box of rocks. He could have restated that dog whistle in his rallies and gotten away with this travel ban. But he's just too fucking stupid.

And obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.....

The law is the law no matter if Trump said he did it because he doesn't like how they dress........judges don't get to rule on feelings or beliefs...they have to rule on the law or they are just social justice dipshits pretending to be judges.

If by "the law" you mean precedent, yes.
They also rule on any and all available evidence.You would prefer what, mind melds?
They can properly consider "foreign" sources IE: say....English Common Law, philosophers, etc. These ideas can help clarify.
An ideal of Justice. Capital J.
INTENT! A biggie. See if you can put on your growed up thinking cap!
The Constitution doesn't spell much in detail THAT'S WHY we have a Judiciary.TO INTERPRET.
THE ABOVE IS WHAT JUDGES DO!
Strict Constructionist? That's a laugh. SHOW ME, where in the US Constitution are the words "You have a right to a fair trail"?
I'll wait.Maybe you can QUICKLY Google or go to law school before you post Gomers!!!

 

[WaitingFor2020]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

"...the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims."

Exactly. He is stupider than a box of rocks. He could have restated that dog whistle in his rallies and gotten away with this travel ban. But he's just too fucking stupid.

And obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.....

The law is the law no matter if Trump said he did it because he doesn't like how they dress........judges don't get to rule on feelings or beliefs...they have to rule on the law or they are just social justice dipshits pretending to be judges.

If by "the law" you mean precedent, yes.
They also rule on any and all available evidence.You would prefer what, mind melds?
They can properly consider "foreign" sources IE: say....English Common Law, philosophers, etc. These ideas can help clarify.
An ideal of Justice. Capital J.
INTENT! A biggie. See if you can put on your growed up thinking cap!
The Constitution doesn't spell much in detail THAT'S WHY we have a Judiciary.TO INTERPRET.
THE ABOVE IS WHAT JUDGES DO!
Strict Constructionist? That's a laugh. SHOW ME, where in the US Constitution are the words "You have a right to a fair trail"?
I'll wait.Maybe you can QUICKLY Google or go to law school before you post Gomers!!!

"The Constitution doesn't spell much in detail THAT'S WHY we have a Judiciary.TO INTERPRET."

Exactly. A friend of mine has a long legal career such as you have, and he says this repeatedly.

 

[beagle9]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

. He should be proud, because appointing leftist judges to a bench is insane.

Well, I'm not entranced with a bunch of right leaning judges unfairly flooding a system that is supposed to take fair turn and turn about.

. What constitutes a fair turn and/or turn about ?? In the minds that are bent towards a broad definition of diversity, then it gets lost in the mix. The IGNORING for to long "the majority" who held on to the tenants, values, and writings that were inspired by men having a purpose to create a great nation under God, indivisible, and with liberty and justice for all, otherwise who believed in these things, had began the downward spiral that has turned into a great whirpool that leads us all straight into hell. Trump's "make America great again" is what the Americans gravitated to, and is what they supported him for.... Let's hope it all works out, and I think it will.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Well, except those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed district in the judiciary!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

Elections have consequences!

 

[beagle9]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

LOL Yes.I have no fucking clue all right. My 35 years in law, friendships with people who REALLY run the country are trumped ( pun intended ) by you, a Goober on an obscure internet message board.
I'd say you are either a child or an idiot.....or both.But that's OBVIOUS!!!
Thanks for the laugh!

. Whose a goober on a message board ? Oh that be you huh ? LOL.

 

[longknife]

Republicans steamrolling Dems to confirm Trump judicial nominees



10 at a time, the Trump administration is submitting conservative nominees to fill the 100+ vacancies in the federal judiciary.

And thanks to the Ried Senate rules changes, the Dems can’t do anything about it!

Yesterday, The Atlantic cautioned that these nominations could be Trump’s Most Lasting Legacy?

With the investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign, the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the already controversial healthcare bill and the never-ending saga of Press Secretary Sean Spicer, it would seem that the Trump administration is in a tailspin, grappling daily with an onslaught of unforced errors and unforeseen consequences, too busy putting out the latest fire (or dousing it with gasoline) to pay too much heed to actually moving the ball forward. But amid all the he said-he said allegations and endless rounds of Recusal Jeopardy, there is one corner of the universe where Team Trump has been successfully executing on its campaign promises, ticking off agenda items with the humming efficiency of a well-oiled machine: reshaping the nation’s courts.
Full story @ Republicans steamrolling Dems to confirm Trump judicial nominees

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

That is all very well and good, but what did he actually say in the EO?

I hope once Trump wins in court that he shuts down immigration from about half the world indefinitely!

 

[beagle9]

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

. He didn't say ban all Muslims.. He said we need to place a moritorium on Muslims coming from these countries that we can't vett them properly or till we figure out what the Hell is going on. Why stretch the speak into something it wasn't ?? The Demon-crats narratives are falling apart big time, but they still try to cling to the edge like a rabid animal holding on to what little bit is left of the mind.

 

[beagle9]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

It is, genius..they are expecting a ruling next week..........twit. The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal...but because Trump did it it isn't legal...those are the very left wing, social justice warriors pretending to be judges that need to be replaced.

OK, little child, state the federal law. And a link. Where did Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer say it would be legal for Obama or Hillary? Either put up or shut up.

Here you go dipshit...it was the argument made by the ACLU and ruled on by the left wing appeals court...

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

This ACLU lawyer is a left wing judge, too?
Excuse me, let me remind you of the comment in question:
"The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal.""

And this is what he actually said:
"""ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”"""

Do any of you idiots actually READ something before you post?

Do you understand they can't rule on what Trump said during the campaign--only what the EO said???? God you're stupid.

. But what he said was right... They just twist it into what they want it to mean, because they are smart in a very bad way like that. Nobody's buying their bullcrap anymore, and thank God for it.

 

[pdxex]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Well, except those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed district in the judiciary!

Being reversed doesn't mean they chose to inore the "law".It just means a higher Court disagreed!

And my Hannity watching friend, it isn't the most overturned.
the top 5!

1. 6th Circuit - 87 percent;
   
   
2. 11th Circuit - 85 percent;
   
   
3. 9th Circuit - 79 percent;
   
   
4. 3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
   
   
5. 2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
   
   
6. Having no legal education, you don't get what any of this really means.I'll help you:NOTHING!
7. You might want to get at least a basic education! And WHY the gigantic font?
8. Oh yeah.I learned in the early days of the web, GIANT FONT MAKES THINGS EXTRA TRUE!!!
   LOL

 

[pdxex]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

LOL Yes.I have no fucking clue all right. My 35 years in law, friendships with people who REALLY run the country are trumped ( pun intended ) by you, a Goober on an obscure internet message board.
I'd say you are either a child or an idiot.....or both.But that's OBVIOUS!!!
Thanks for the laugh!

. Whose a goober on a message board ? Oh that be you huh ? LOL.

Actually no. GOMER! It's guys like you!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most of the judges will not make the far right happy.

No, most will, some may not.

Ruh roh, shaggy, you got it wrong again.

They are overwhelmingly not far right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

It is, genius..they are expecting a ruling next week..........twit. The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal...but because Trump did it it isn't legal...those are the very left wing, social justice warriors pretending to be judges that need to be replaced.

OK, little child, state the federal law. And a link. Where did Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer say it would be legal for Obama or Hillary? Either put up or shut up.

Here you go dipshit...it was the argument made by the ACLU and ruled on by the left wing appeals court...

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

This ACLU lawyer is a left wing judge, too?
Excuse me, let me remind you of the comment in question:
"The very case that shows that left wing justices...who actually stated that if hilary or obama did the same thing it would be legal.""

And this is what he actually said:
"""ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”"""

Do any of you idiots actually READ something before you post?

Do you understand they can't rule on what Trump said during the campaign--only what the EO said???? God you're stupid.

The court can certainly take the December comments in context with the EO.

 

[pdxex]

From an article by Lauren Carroll:
"
The Supreme Court only hears a handful of cases from each circuit each year, so the rate of reversal is highly variable, said Jonah Gelbach, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a statistician. In 2014, for instance, the 2nd Circuit had a reversal rate of 100 percent, which sounds pretty bad until you find out that the Supreme Court only heard one case from the 2nd Circuit that entire season.

The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide.

You Goobers simply are easily propagandized.Ya don't know what you are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

I agree that outside the context of his earlier statements about banning Muslims that may fly.

I understand that some sillies may think that the justices cannot consider campaign rhetoric. Of course they can.

 

[pdxex]

Funny how an activist Judge seems to always the one that doesn't promote YOUR agenda.I'll leave it to you to decide if that fits the right or the left.
To the Goober all worked up about "foreign" sources and laws being considered:Is it improper to use The Bible then?
To other Goobers, where did you get the idea that Executive Orders cannot be found unConstitutional?
Amateurs!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Well, except those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed district in the judiciary!

Being reversed doesn't mean they chose to inore the "law".It just means a higher Court disagreed!

And my Hannity watching friend, it isn't the most overturned.
the top 5!

1. 6th Circuit - 87 percent;
   
   
2. 11th Circuit - 85 percent;
   
   
3. 9th Circuit - 79 percent;
   
   
4. 3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
   
   
5. 2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
   
   
6. Having no legal education, you don't get what any of this really means.I'll help you:NOTHING!
7. You might want to get at least a basic education! And WHY the gigantic font?
8. Oh yeah.I learned in the early days of the web, GIANT FONT MAKES THINGS EXTRA TRUE!!!
   LOL

No. The giant font is so dumbass fake lawyers can read when they screwed up!

What makes you think I have no legal education?

As to your reversal rate, I read you ignorant mathematically challenged article. The authors were basing it on percentage, which the article itself glossed over in terms of how the statistic is measured.

Where are the raw numbers?

If one court had 1 decision overturned out of 1 case heard, that is a 100% rate, but another court with 20 cases heard and was overturned 18 times would have a rate of only 90%.

Which is the most overturned? Unfortunately for you it is the latter, and not the former.

I think you are a fake, but if you are a lawyer, don't mess with someone who does stats in his sleep!