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.
See more
See less

Travel Ban Upheld!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Increase 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.
    Starlight’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.
    "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

    Comment


    • #17
      No posts from libs at first, demi wondered if libs ran out of tears after 'think of children!!!! '
      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        How so?
        Most 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.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Increase 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.
          So 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


          • #20
            Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
            Starlight’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.
            Starlight is just a hate-filled bigot. He doesn't care about honesty or fairness, just in destroying those he doesn't like. He must live a really sad life.

            Comment


            • #21
              Incidental fun fact: Korematsu v. United States was officially overturned with this decision.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              More 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~
              While I would argue the two cases aren't analogous to begin with, one can just as easily turn that argument around: Why didn't Sotomayor and Ginsburg have a problem with the statements made in that case, but made Trump's statements their entire argument in this one?

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Most 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.
              I 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.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So 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.
              While I agree no seat was stolen (the practice of not acting on a nomination in the hopes that the next president will be of your party, while perhaps a jerk move, is nevertheless legal and hardly without precedent by both Democrats and Republicans), I should point out that the Democrats upping the number of supreme court justices is not cheating either. It's completely allowed. If they had the numbers to do it, and given the perpetual pendulum of party control they will eventually, the Democrats could absolutely pass a law increasing the number of justices and use it to pack the court. Again, perhaps a jerk move, but completely allowed, and not without precedent.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                I 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.
                Trump can say whatever he wants. What matters is what's actually written into the order. Any argument made attempting to "interpret" Trump's intent is political and not legal.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Increase 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.
                  ...
                  So you're saying that right now, while we still have control of both Houses of Congress, we should immediate increase the size of SCOTUS by adding the entire list of 25 names from which Gorsuch was drawn.

                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    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.
                    No matter. 'First Amendment religion' about Congress laws, not President EOs.
                    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                    Comment


                    • #25


                      Good, good!!!
                      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                        No matter. 'First Amendment religion' about Congress laws, not President EOs.
                        If 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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          If 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.
                          If you want to go full legalistic, text says 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof', nothing about President cannot. That's all.
                          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            So you're saying that right now, while we still have control of both Houses of Congress, we should immediate increase the size of SCOTUS by adding the entire list of 25 names from which Gorsuch was drawn.

                            I approve!
                            Great plan!

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            111 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            307 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            111 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            196 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            357 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X