Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

[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

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!

WOW you Goobers are volatile!
Who SAID I was a I was a lawyer? you ASSUME a lot without knowing much!
Your "arguments" and reasoning make it PAINFULLY obvious you have no legal education.Youtube videos and websurfing DO NOT COUNT!!

 

[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!

WOW you Goobers are volatile!
Who SAID I was a I was a lawyer? you ASSUME a lot without knowing much!
Your "arguments" and reasoning make it PAINFULLY obvious you have no legal education.Youtube videos and websurfing DO NOT COUNT!!

My arguments? You posted a source that I destroyed using mathematics in a about three sentences. Do you not see your problem here?

 

[pdxex]

So many Larry Clayman wanna be's online! So little time.
Does it EVER dawn on you LEGAL EXPERTS that when for decades, every court in America rejects the "reasoning" you use............that you are wrong?
But then again, Klayman is batshit crazy too!

 

[Defiant1]

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?

Absolutely, All' fair in love an war, and politics is both.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, they cannot. That's why it's heading to the SC.

A judge rules on what an EO says, not what they think the motivation is. They cannot retaliate against free speech using their judicial powers.

 

[2aguy]

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!!!

No moron.....we aren't talking about legal theory....

Justice Ginsburg Backs Value of Foreign Law

On March 1, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed their crimes before turning 18. The majority opinion reasoned that the United States was increasingly out of step with the world by allowing minors to be executed, saying "the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty."

Justice Scalia lambasted that logic, saying that "like-minded foreigners" should not be given a role in helping interpret the Constitution. House Republicans have introduced a resolution declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States."

 

[beagle9]

So many Larry Clayman wanna be's online! So little time.
Does it EVER dawn on you LEGAL EXPERTS that when for decades, every court in America rejects the "reasoning" you use............that you are wrong?
But then again, Klayman is batshit crazy too!

. For decades foward you will be the one scrambling for your sanity, because conservatives aren't going to be getting into the tolerance trap again.

 

[danielpalos]

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

lol. Promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution; promoting the general warfare or common offense, is not.

 

[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.

No, they cannot. That's why it's heading to the SC.

A judge rules on what an EO says, not what they think the motivation is. They cannot retaliate against free speech using their judicial powers.

The judge can take in all evidence that pertains to the case. SCOTUS will make the decision.

 

[pdxex]

So many Larry Clayman wanna be's online! So little time.
Does it EVER dawn on you LEGAL EXPERTS that when for decades, every court in America rejects the "reasoning" you use............that you are wrong?
But then again, Klayman is batshit crazy too!

. For decades foward you will be the one scrambling for your sanity, because conservatives aren't going to be getting into the tolerance trap again.

Look morons, I have things to do.So get to your exciting Trumpers circle jerk! Trump has the RIGHT to do a lot of things, but if what he wants to do violates the Constitution...he can't do them.
IF he bases his "travel ban" on religion, that's unConstitutional. He could actually shut his damn mouth, hire some decent lawyers and have avoided this.
Look guys! Just because you are too stupid to understand something, it doesn't mean you are right!!!
Your characterization of panicking, scrambling, your irrational anger etc just SHOW YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING.....of how these games are played!

 

[beagle9]

So many Larry Clayman wanna be's online! So little time.
Does it EVER dawn on you LEGAL EXPERTS that when for decades, every court in America rejects the "reasoning" you use............that you are wrong?
But then again, Klayman is batshit crazy too!

. For decades foward you will be the one scrambling for your sanity, because conservatives aren't going to be getting into the tolerance trap again.

Look morons, I have things to do.So get to your exciting Trumpers circle jerk! Trump has the RIGHT to do a lot of things, but if what he wants to do violates the Constitution...he can't do them.
IF he bases his "travel ban" on religion, that's unConstitutional. He could actually shut his damn mouth, hire some decent lawyers and have avoided this.
Look guys! Just because you are too stupid to understand something, it doesn't mean you are right!!!
Your characterization of panicking, scrambling, your irrational anger etc just SHOW YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING.....of how these games are played!

. Got you seeing red now eh ??? ROTFLMBO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, they cannot. That's why it's heading to the SC.

A judge rules on what an EO says, not what they think the motivation is. They cannot retaliate against free speech using their judicial powers.

The judge can take in all evidence that pertains to the case. SCOTUS will make the decision.

Yes they will, and I think you will be terribly disappointed.

A judge can take "some" evidence into consideration in a trail case. This was not a trial case. Stopping an EO that clearly spells out the intent and use of a written law is a a violation of Separation of Powers. It's the judicial branch making executive branch decisions. For instance:

Let's say this weekend we had a terrible terrorist attack from a person(s) from one of the countries outlined in the EO. It then became known that Trump knew about the possible attack, but was prohibited from doing something to protect the citizens because of an activist judge. How would you feel about that?

Judges are not privy to classified or confidential information that the President has. Judges do not sit in or participate in national security meetings. So when a judge stops a President from exercising his powers for political purposes, it puts everybody in the country at danger.

And if that were to happen (God forbid) the judge should be held liable for the injuries and deaths of American citizens because of his activism. He should face trial for those murders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ray, we will see. This ruling probably will not be made on the President's war time powers, because we are not at war. The Justices do not have to defer to the President, only to the Constitution, which is the ultimate political purpose.

 

[LeftofLeft]

"The Courts are where Policy is made" - Sotomayor

Is that why the Democrats are shitting themselves? Because one of their own revealed that Liberals believe Policy should be made at the Bench (AKA "activist judge"). They believe in the concept but not the outcome. Typical.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, we will see. This ruling probably will not be made on the President's war time powers, because we are not at war. The Justices do not have to defer to the President, only to the Constitution, which is the ultimate political purpose.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Trump's EO doesn't violate one article of it. If you think it does, then show me the constitutional violation of the order (not campaign rhetoric) that this activist judge ruled on.

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. If it is not, our US Constitution is over for all of us. If they allow the separation of powers to be violated, then we are all in serious trouble in this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is pooping in hsi or pants, except leftofleft, in their pants because of what Sotomayor had to say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ray, we will see. This ruling probably will not be made on the President's war time powers, because we are not at war. The Justices do not have to defer to the President, only to the Constitution, which is the ultimate political purpose.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Trump's EO doesn't violate one article of it. If you think it does, then show me the constitutional violation of the order (not campaign rhetoric) that this activist judge ruled on.

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. If it is not, our US Constitution is over for all of us. If they allow the separation of powers to be violated, then we are all in serious trouble in this country.

keep telling yourself that, Raye

I don't have to show you anything because you have closed your mind

There is no separation of powers being violated when SCOTUS rules

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Not to worry.

Give it a couple of years with a Conservative judiciary, and the Muslim Ban will be back on; in spades.

Give it a couple of years with a Conservative judiciary, and the Gay Mafia gets tossed under the bus.

 

[iceberg]

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?

did biden say that a,lame duck president should not make those apoiintments,or are we talking different appointments?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no separation of powers being violated when SCOTUS rules

Wait a minute: We have a law on our books that the President exercised. An activist judge says he can't exercise that law because he doesn't like what Trump said while campaigning. In other words, a judge stopped a President from using a law that's been on our books for decades, and you say that isn't the judicial branch making executive branch decisions????

Of course it is. It's almost as obvious as the nose on your face.