We are a nation of laws......

[BoSoxGal]

Then read the documents, they are public record. Because you really are not saying accurate things about the scope of the arguments at the 9th circuit and the decision that came from them. And it's embarrassing. You appear dumb, and I'm sorry if you think that's an insult. I'm not the one who is making you look that way, you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

But so far, you haven't mad any constitutional arguments.

Due Process isn't applicable to people who aren't even citizens of our country who aren't living in our country, yet the 9th Circuit made no delineation between American citizens and noncitizens.

Again, you are not talking about what actually happened.

What did happen, then? You seem to know so much.

 

[BoSoxGal]

The application of statutes by the executive is subject to judicial review - even in this case. Basic civics.

Review, not dictation. Judges are not allowed to dictate or change the power of the President when he is exercising it within his constitutionally and congressionally granted power.

Oh wow, the dumb is strong in you.

Forget it, I'll put you on ignore and you can do the same with me - or keep reading and learn something. But really, it's as if you never took American government or were smoking dope before class every. single. day.

Ouch.

By the way, this makes me sad because I like your Kafka quote. But I do feel now I must go check on its accuracy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then read the documents, they are public record. Because you really are not saying accurate things about the scope of the arguments at the 9th circuit and the decision that came from them. And it's embarrassing. You appear dumb, and I'm sorry if you think that's an insult. I'm not the one who is making you look that way, you are.

All of that is rendered moot when 86% of their rulings have been invalidated by other courts in the past year. How can you be gullible enough to put your faith in such an unreliable interpretation of constitutional jurisprudence?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The application of statutes by the executive is subject to judicial review - even in this case. Basic civics.

Review, not dictation. Judges are not allowed to dictate or change the power of the President when he is exercising it within his constitutionally and congressionally granted power.

Oh wow, the dumb is strong in you.

Forget it, I'll put you on ignore and you can do the same with me - or keep reading and learn something. But really, it's as if you never took American government or were smoking dope before class every. single. day.

Ouch.

You lose, you churlish little girl.

Instead of making your case, you insult me. You insulted Tex, and you claim to have read the brief without even citing it. I've debated two lawyers of 20+ years already on the subject and basically got them both to back down. One did the same thing you're doing. Basically your argument boils down to calling people stupid and claiming to have superior knowledge on the subject. Okay then. Prove that superior knowledge by debating instead of grandstanding.

So, are you going to debate honestly or ignore me? If you do ignore me, you'll forfeit the point and I won't care in the slightest.

 

[BoSoxGal]

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

I have faith in our judiciary - I believe even the Republican appointees will not stand for fascism.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then read the documents, they are public record. Because you really are not saying accurate things about the scope of the arguments at the 9th circuit and the decision that came from them. And it's embarrassing. You appear dumb, and I'm sorry if you think that's an insult. I'm not the one who is making you look that way, you are.

This is from 2010...every one knows how the 9th does not rule by the constitution but by "feelings "



9th Circuit: Still Crazy After All These Years

Bobbo
6 years ago





9th Circuit says 'tomorrow' is 6 days away.

Inquiring minds are once again astounded at the shallowness of minds on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. FoxNews is reporting in yet another case, a ‘three judge panel’ showed they are ‘stupidity cubed’ by not allowing enforcement of a stated legal requirement:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a key part of Arizona’s law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote and to show identification before casting ballots.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.

The ruling left in place a requirement that voters provide proof of identity when casting ballots.

So…it is a legal requirement to show proof of identity to vote but not that you are legally entitled to vote? Does that mean a person could show a Mexican driver’s license? Or better yet, a Mexican passport?

For some reason, liberals think this passes for intelligence. It doesn’t…this side of third grade. It is never clever to say 1+1=3 outside of a senior level math class (or accounting class!). That is called “stupidity”. Even in a courtroom.

It has to be just a coincidence that the 9th Circuit is populated by Progressive Democrats and this ruling increases a Democrat voting base – illegal immigrants. You don’t think this might be politically motivated do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Were you bawling about judicial activism then?

You probably were.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, this makes me sad because I like your Kafka quote. But I do feel now I must go check on its accuracy.

Lol. I like it too. And if the truth were left to people whose legal opinions were tainted by political biases, like yours, we'd all be dead in the context of that quote.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.[/QUOTE

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

But your comment wasn't about tantrums.

It was trying to draw an analogy that is beyond hyperbolic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, I guess she put me on ignore. Well then. I guess she figured calling people stupid isn't a sufficient rebuttal after all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.[/QUOTE

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

But your comment wasn't about tantrums.

It was trying to draw an analogy that is beyond hyperbolic.

Was there something you wanted to say to me in that chain quote?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, here's the text:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.[/QUOTE

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

But your comment wasn't about tantrums.

It was trying to draw an analogy that is beyond hyperbolic.

Was there something you wanted to say to me in that chain quote?

No, that was pointed at Vandalshandle.

Sorry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.[/QUOTE

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

But your comment wasn't about tantrums.

It was trying to draw an analogy that is beyond hyperbolic.

Was there something you wanted to say to me in that chain quote?

No, that was pointed at Vandalshandle.

Sorry.

No worries.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Roe wasn't law until SCOTUS made it so

Whoaaaa there. It isn't the place of the courts to make law. Which is at the core of this issue now.[/QUOTE

There is a precedent for a nation that was dominated by one party, and that party's leader not only controlled the administration, and congress, but also the judiciary. That country evolved into this kind of government in 1933. Can anyone guess what that country was?

Yes, some moron already posted that idiocy.

Ordering a 90 day stay was so how the Nazi's started.

Get back to me when they start putting people in camps.

Or better yet...put them at Cal-Berkley...where they can be pummeled by the idiots on campus.

If the judiciary rules that Trump's EO is Constitutional, I have no problem. If not, then Trump is simply going to have to have to live with the fact that he does not control all three branches of government. He, will, of course, throw tantrum after tantrum about that, but I really don't think that he will die by holding his breath and kicking the floor.

But your comment wasn't about tantrums.

It was trying to draw an analogy that is beyond hyperbolic.

Sun, I do believe that you take yourself WAY too seriously....