Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Travel Ban Upheld!
Collapse
X
-
"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostHow so?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIncrease the number of justices on the court. It's been done before.
Over US history the number of SCOTUS justices has gone: 6, 7, 9, 10, 7, 9. Congress has authority with regard to changing that number.
When SCOTUS looked like it might strike down FDR's New Deal, FDR threatened to get congress to add more justices to SCOTUS until he had a supportive majority.
So if Dems win by enough, and have the political will and spine to do so, they can say on day one "As everyone is aware, Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat that wasn't theirs to appoint, so we're adding 2 more (Dem-appointed) justices to SCOTUS right now".
Of course Republicans across the country would have hissy fits if they weren't allowed to get away with their SCOTUS seat theft.
Yet to "fix" it, you proposed the democrats cheat instead?
Your lack of integrity is showing again Starlight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostStarlight’s delusions are so amusing because what is there to stop Republicans doing the same thing next time they get into power? You would think that he’d learn by now to be careful what new rules you try to introduce because there’s nothing stopping your opponents from doing it next time.
Comment
-
Incidental fun fact: Korematsu v. United States was officially overturned with this decision.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostMore than a few people are pointing out that it looks rather suspicious that the conservatives on SCOTUS:
- found a problem with the gay bakery case on the grounds that the state equality commissioner might have said something negative about a particular evangelical Christian view
- choose to deliberately avoid seeing any religious implications of this travel ban and choose to ignore Trump's explicit statements that it was a Muslim ban
...it's almost like the conservatives on SCOTUS think that evangelical Christianity is the only religious view that needs to be protected. ~cue shock and surprise~
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostMost of the arguments presented against the travel ban were based on things Trump had said rather than what was written into the executive order itself.
Also, you said "the four [that] ruled against". The arguments regarding what Trump said were primarily part of Sotomayor and Ginsburg's dissent. Kagan and Breyer touched on it, but their primary concern was regarding how the ban was being implemented compared to the arguments made for it, and wanted it remanded for consideration on that point.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo you think the republicans somehow cheated? How did they "steal" the seat? It went through the proper procedures and congress.
Yet to "fix" it, you proposed the democrats cheat instead?
Your lack of integrity is showing again Starlight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI don't see how that reflects ruling on politics rather than the law. It's just the classic legislative intent vs. textualism debate.
Also, you said "the four [that] ruled against". The arguments regarding what Trump said were primarily part of Sotomayor and Ginsburg's dissent. Kagan and Breyer touched on it, but their primary concern was regarding how the ban was being implemented compared to the arguments made for it, and wanted it remanded for consideration on that point.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIncrease the number of justices on the court. It's been done before.
Over US history the number of SCOTUS justices has gone: 6, 7, 9, 10, 7, 9. Congress has authority with regard to changing that number.
...
I approve!Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostAlso, you said "the four [that] ruled against". The arguments regarding what Trump said were primarily part of Sotomayor and Ginsburg's dissent. Kagan and Breyer touched on it, but their primary concern was regarding how the ban was being implemented compared to the arguments made for it, and wanted it remanded for consideration on that point.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostNo matter. 'First Amendment religion' about Congress laws, not President EOs.
From my understanding, the reason is this: For a president to enact an executive order, they need to have the actual power to do so (i.e. a president can't give an executive order declaring themselves president for life). This power can be granted in one of two ways: Either an explicit power given to the president by the Constitution, or a power granted to them by a law. In this case, the power is given by a law (the Immigration and Nationality Act). As congress cannot pass a law that violates the First Amendment--or any other amendment--any actions taken under that law, in this case the executive order, cannot violate it either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostIf it didn't apply, then the majority opinion could have just said that and called it a day instead of going through their analysis of why it doesn't violate it. It seems to apply.
From my understanding, the reason is this: For a president to enact an executive order, they need to have the actual power to do so (i.e. a president can't give an executive order declaring themselves president for life). This power can be granted in one of two ways: Either an explicit power given to the president by the Constitution, or a power granted to them by a law. In this case, the power is given by a law (the Immigration and Nationality Act). As congress cannot pass a law that violates the First Amendment--or any other amendment--any actions taken under that law, in this case the executive order, cannot violate it either.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment