News42 mins ago
Ban On Trump's Executive Order Stays
54 Answers
The three appeal judges in San Francisco have declined to reinstate President Trump's executive order revoking visas
so the borders are still open .... ( ish )
Court Judgement here
http://
the difficulty about using the word 'ban'
as it comes down to the 'ban on the ban on the ban wasnt upheld .... '
so the borders are still open .... ( ish )
Court Judgement here
http://
the difficulty about using the word 'ban'
as it comes down to the 'ban on the ban on the ban wasnt upheld .... '
Answers
Jim, // He has his own best interests at heart. // In what way?
18:08 Fri 10th Feb 2017
I have said this before, but ......
Just what would this awful man have to do or say, before the scales drop from peoples eyes ?
For instance, did he ever apologise to Mr and Mrs Khan ?
https:/
Just what would this awful man have to do or say, before the scales drop from peoples eyes ?
For instance, did he ever apologise to Mr and Mrs Khan ?
https:/
The law can be interpretted in many ways. We are now getting into a situation where judges, on both sides of the pond, are getting political. This is very dangerous as Judges are not elected and cannot be got rid of. What we have seen in the UK is the Establishment using the Courts to interpret the law in their way and being backed by pro Euro Judges not impartial ones.
And just because there is a law there does not make it right. A clear case in point were the homosexuality and race laws of bygone days.
Mr Trump wins both ways in this. He can now point to carrying out what he promised and when things go wrong point to the Judges as they over rode him. They do need to be careful of Mr Trump he is far from the stupid man the Liberal elite make him out to be.
And just because there is a law there does not make it right. A clear case in point were the homosexuality and race laws of bygone days.
Mr Trump wins both ways in this. He can now point to carrying out what he promised and when things go wrong point to the Judges as they over rode him. They do need to be careful of Mr Trump he is far from the stupid man the Liberal elite make him out to be.
Why did you even bring left v. Right into this, JD? It's particularly odd because, in the first place, the decision was 3-0 with judges from both Republican (Clifton) and Democrat (Canby and Friedland) backgrounds rejected the decision, so that this ruling transcends politics anyway. And secondly, as we may as well point out for the umpteenth time, the Democrat party is slightly to the right of the Tory party. The US "left" is rather a lot further right than ours is, so it's pretty bizarre to continue equating the two.
I think you *can* win, TTT -- all you have to do is follow up on promises that were actually worth following up on.
* * * * *
Promoting this idea that the courts are getting political is playing into Trump's hands -- and is also utterly wrong, of course. The ruling last night simply says that the Temporary Restraining Order will stay in place until the full constitutional nature of this Executive Order is established, and says little definitive about that. Mostly it confines itself to saying something along the lines of "The Government seriously needs to argue its case properly in the lower Court". That leaves it to the lower courts, for now to determine properly whether this act is constitutional or not. It addresses jd's post at 9.00am head-on, in fact: the President cannot change the law in a way that violates the constitution. This is obvious because in the US the constitution is Supreme, and Presidents are only temporary.
And that's what this EO appears to do, in particular running roughshod over the Fifth Amendment right to due process that extends to everyone within the US, legally resident or otherwise. The President simply can't enact laws that destroy the foundations of the US willy-nilly. And that's even before addressing the religious elements of this EO, that are in dispute but may yet add to the weight of evidence why this is a bad law under the Constitution.
As to the idea that "the courts are getting political" in the sense that it's happening *now*, or a recent development, this is also nonsense. In answering this question the ruling directly cites judgements from 1889 and 1903 that repeat essentially the same principle, that courts should generally allow the government to get on with things but must feel free to step in if the governments actions are, or might be, unconstitutional:
"... this court has never held... that administrative officers... may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in ‘due process of law’ as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution." (from page 15 of the ruling, citing a 1903 ruling).
It's just a nonsense that this decision is political. Trump may pretend otherwise. We shouldn't fall for that.
* * * * *
Promoting this idea that the courts are getting political is playing into Trump's hands -- and is also utterly wrong, of course. The ruling last night simply says that the Temporary Restraining Order will stay in place until the full constitutional nature of this Executive Order is established, and says little definitive about that. Mostly it confines itself to saying something along the lines of "The Government seriously needs to argue its case properly in the lower Court". That leaves it to the lower courts, for now to determine properly whether this act is constitutional or not. It addresses jd's post at 9.00am head-on, in fact: the President cannot change the law in a way that violates the constitution. This is obvious because in the US the constitution is Supreme, and Presidents are only temporary.
And that's what this EO appears to do, in particular running roughshod over the Fifth Amendment right to due process that extends to everyone within the US, legally resident or otherwise. The President simply can't enact laws that destroy the foundations of the US willy-nilly. And that's even before addressing the religious elements of this EO, that are in dispute but may yet add to the weight of evidence why this is a bad law under the Constitution.
As to the idea that "the courts are getting political" in the sense that it's happening *now*, or a recent development, this is also nonsense. In answering this question the ruling directly cites judgements from 1889 and 1903 that repeat essentially the same principle, that courts should generally allow the government to get on with things but must feel free to step in if the governments actions are, or might be, unconstitutional:
"... this court has never held... that administrative officers... may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in ‘due process of law’ as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution." (from page 15 of the ruling, citing a 1903 ruling).
It's just a nonsense that this decision is political. Trump may pretend otherwise. We shouldn't fall for that.
The Trump EO was, as this article says, malevolence tempered by incompetence.
https:/
The cases here and America demonstrate the separation of powers which is a hallmark of a functioning democracy.
https:/
The cases here and America demonstrate the separation of powers which is a hallmark of a functioning democracy.
One reason Kim Jong Un is not criticised quite so much is that we probably don't know what he's up to half the time and secondly we expect higher standards of the US.
There is tho rather a lot of pretty damning criticism of Mr Kim sloshing around.
But a rather desperate piece of pointless moral relativism I think
There is tho rather a lot of pretty damning criticism of Mr Kim sloshing around.
But a rather desperate piece of pointless moral relativism I think
mikey - //It has been suggested on here that Trump could have done all this, via Congress, so I am at a loss to understand why he didn't do that ? //
I have been saying this since way before the election, and very often since -
Donald Trump has lived in a world where he transmits, and everyone receives. He is used to saying something, and it happens, no arguments, no questions, he says, people do.
I said he was going to have pretty quickly to get used to the idea that he is not in Trump Tower any more, and he will have to consult, and ask and take (!) advice, and learn that he is not autocratic anymore, and he needs to learn how politics work, because this is his world now.
And of course, he has learned nothing at all.
He uses Executive Orders because they are his comfort zone, the nearest thing he has to his old life, where he says, and people do.
Of course, he is now finding that not only do people not to what he says, but they have the law behind them - an entirely new experience for Donald, and he reacts, as he always reacts when he doesn't get his way, by baffled rage and stupid insults, belittling people and sounding petty and mean.
The reason he didn't run this by Congress, and find out in advance that it was unworkable and illegal, is because he didn't think he needed to.
Consultation, compromise, advice, being stopped - these are all brand new concepts to The President. Probably people are trying to educate him behind the scenes, but I doubt he is listening - he never had to before.
I have been saying this since way before the election, and very often since -
Donald Trump has lived in a world where he transmits, and everyone receives. He is used to saying something, and it happens, no arguments, no questions, he says, people do.
I said he was going to have pretty quickly to get used to the idea that he is not in Trump Tower any more, and he will have to consult, and ask and take (!) advice, and learn that he is not autocratic anymore, and he needs to learn how politics work, because this is his world now.
And of course, he has learned nothing at all.
He uses Executive Orders because they are his comfort zone, the nearest thing he has to his old life, where he says, and people do.
Of course, he is now finding that not only do people not to what he says, but they have the law behind them - an entirely new experience for Donald, and he reacts, as he always reacts when he doesn't get his way, by baffled rage and stupid insults, belittling people and sounding petty and mean.
The reason he didn't run this by Congress, and find out in advance that it was unworkable and illegal, is because he didn't think he needed to.
Consultation, compromise, advice, being stopped - these are all brand new concepts to The President. Probably people are trying to educate him behind the scenes, but I doubt he is listening - he never had to before.
Reading Slaney's posts suggests that Trump didn't even need to run this by Congress -- all he had to do was draft it properly, seek consultation and legal guidance from various federal institutions, and make sure the document was a little clearer on some points and less restrictive in others -- but otherwise I think he might have been able to have the power to do most of this.
The problem comes because it's such a blunt instrument, badly targeted and badly written, that anyway will achieve likely none of what it is superficially intending to do.
At any rate, the fight will roll on and on because for sure Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. Oh, and if you want "political courts", why not consider the horrific conflict of interest that is that body, given that Trump is also responsible for appointing, and Congress for approving, the ninth judge to fill the current vacancy? There can be no more horrific conflict of interest, or politicised court decision, than that. Although somehow I suspect that most right-wing commentators are rather looking forward to a court that's political in such a way. Because, after all, it will be their kind of politics.
The problem comes because it's such a blunt instrument, badly targeted and badly written, that anyway will achieve likely none of what it is superficially intending to do.
At any rate, the fight will roll on and on because for sure Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. Oh, and if you want "political courts", why not consider the horrific conflict of interest that is that body, given that Trump is also responsible for appointing, and Congress for approving, the ninth judge to fill the current vacancy? There can be no more horrific conflict of interest, or politicised court decision, than that. Although somehow I suspect that most right-wing commentators are rather looking forward to a court that's political in such a way. Because, after all, it will be their kind of politics.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles100 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles133 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles192 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.