Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I cannot take that argument seriously, guy on the internet.

Except the judges have this thing called "credibility" since they are judges and happen to have dedicated their careers to knowing and interpreting the law. This is opposed to you, some guy on the internet with no formal legal education and likely has just gleamed his opinion off of social media or a conservative news site.

Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter. You can slander these judges all day, but it does nothing to bolster your arguments and they still retain more credibility than you no matter what you say.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you. Your own article even says that those judges' opinions has no legal weight.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you. Your own article even says that those judges' opinions has no legal weight.

What happened to "Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter." There are 5 9th-circuit judges who disagree with everything you've said in this thread.


|___|

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you. Your own article even says that those judges' opinions has no legal weight.

What happened to "Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter." There are 5 9th-circuit judges who disagree with everything you've said in this thread.


|___|

Like I said. Do you. If you want to believe them as true. Knock yourself out. I'm not going to move the goal posts back on what I said originally. So if their opinions is all you need to validate your opinion in your head then kudos to you. As it stands however, their opinions hold no legal weight. So I don't have to take them as seriously as the judges ACTUALLY ruling on these cases; whose opinions DO matter.

Though for me, their opinions don't cut it. Just confirmation bias fodder for Fox News fools looking to validate their already predetermined conclusions. At this point, the only judges that are going to usurp my opinion in this matter are the 8 justices sitting on the Supreme Court since they are the only ones who can over turn the two rulings.

Interesting to see so many applauding a judge, who is acting like he is the Supreme Leader of the United States. No complaints of over reach at all. No complaints of dictatorships. I guess dictatorship are all good as long it's their side.

What's next, some judge somewhere deciding that Trump is not allowed to deploy troops in the middle east because it's anti Muslim??? Maybe we could make this judge the Commander in Chief too.

This will go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win. Then he will go back to version 1 and may even apply further restrictions.

a reply to: UKTruth

That's because judicial review is an established and accepted role of the United States' Judicial Branch. Why question a judge who is acting within the scope of his duties?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said. Do you. If you want to believe them as true. Knock yourself out. I'm not going to move the goal posts back on what I said originally. So if their opinions is all you need to validate your opinion in your head then kudos to you. As it stands however, their opinions hold no legal weight. So I don't have to take them as seriously as the judges ACTUALLY ruling on these cases; whose opinions DO matter.

Though for me, their opinions don't cut it. Just confirmation bias fodder for Fox News fools looking to validate their already predetermined conclusions. At this point, the only judges that are going to usurp my opinion in this matter are the 8 justices sitting on the Supreme Court since they are the only ones who can over turn the two rulings.

I was doing you, actually. I don't care about these judge's opinions one bit. I was only showing you the absurdity of your appeals to authority, which you are still clinging to. So much for "credibility", which means nothing unless it suits you.

Again, we can discuss the merits of the EO and the judges rulings using reason, and not fallacy. But until then, do you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see no reason to do that since you refuse to accept the judge's reasoning on why it was held up as a valid legal defense. You instead want to pretend like that isn't part of the conversation whenever you bring up the EO's "merits" which makes it a strawman. As I've said multiple times, this EO wasn't held up because of the text within, but because of Trump's own words. Words which Trump STILL isn't retracting and continue to hurt his legal cause.

But regardless it just results in us talking in circles. Instead I'll just hold to the judges' ruling until it is overturned. The legal reasoning makes sense to me anyways.

originally posted by: UKTruth
What's next, some judge somewhere deciding that Trump is not allowed to deploy troops in the middle east because it's anti Muslim??? Maybe we could make this judge the Commander in Chief too.

That's not their job. Their job is to make sure the constitution is being upheld here on our soil.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Nice one, He brags about credibility, you counter with judges who approve of it and suddenly their "opinions" and "Don't count", so much for credibility?

The pattern is so simple, its laughable.

The Supreme Court will overturn this so that we can get back to business.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see no reason to do that since you refuse to accept the judge's reasoning on why it was held up as a valid legal defense. You instead want to pretend like that isn't part of the conversation whenever you bring up the EO's "merits" which makes it a strawman. As I've said multiple times, this EO wasn't held up because of the text within, but because of Trump's own words. Words which Trump STILL isn't retracting and continue to hurt his legal cause.

But regardless it just results in us talking in circles. Instead I'll just hold to the judges' ruling until it is overturned. The legal reasoning makes sense to me anyways.

Exactly. The EO is not illegal nor unconstitutional. The Judge is referring to his feelings about Trump's statements he made over a year ago, and not anything in the EO itself. I will not accept that as valid because it isn't.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see no reason to do that since you refuse to accept the judge's reasoning on why it was held up as a valid legal defense. You instead want to pretend like that isn't part of the conversation whenever you bring up the EO's "merits" which makes it a strawman. As I've said multiple times, this EO wasn't held up because of the text within, but because of Trump's own words. Words which Trump STILL isn't retracting and continue to hurt his legal cause.

But regardless it just results in us talking in circles. Instead I'll just hold to the judges' ruling until it is overturned. The legal reasoning makes sense to me anyways.

Exactly. The EO is not illegal nor unconstitutional. The Judge is referring to his feelings about Trump's statements he made over a year ago, and not anything in the EO itself. I will not accept that as valid because it isn't.

Too bad your opinion means diddly towards the outcome of this EO. Clearly these judges DO see legal merit in these arguments; that is why they ruled as such. So you are going to need a better argument than "it's not illegal nor unconstitutional because I don't agree with the ruling!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too bad your opinion means diddly towards the outcome of this EO. Clearly these judges DO see legal merit in these arguments; that is why they ruled as such. So you are going to need a better argument than "it's not illegal nor unconstitutional because I don't agree with the ruling!"

Again back to the appeals to authority.

|_________|

Perhaps you can show me which part of the EO is illegal or unconstitutional, even if you just said it isn't about the EO itself.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: UKTruth
What's next, some judge somewhere deciding that Trump is not allowed to deploy troops in the middle east because it's anti Muslim??? Maybe we could make this judge the Commander in Chief too.

That's not their job. Their job is to make sure the constitution is being upheld here on our soil.

Indeed, so it seems odd that he would be applying his interpretation of the constitution to people not on US soil.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see no reason to do that since you refuse to accept the judge's reasoning on why it was held up as a valid legal defense. You instead want to pretend like that isn't part of the conversation whenever you bring up the EO's "merits" which makes it a strawman. As I've said multiple times, this EO wasn't held up because of the text within, but because of Trump's own words. Words which Trump STILL isn't retracting and continue to hurt his legal cause.

But regardless it just results in us talking in circles. Instead I'll just hold to the judges' ruling until it is overturned. The legal reasoning makes sense to me anyways.

That will be the key issue, whether campaign words can be used to interpret an EO outside of what is actually written. Moreover, the judge does not take into account that Trump actually changed his approach - and words - on this prior to being elected. Trump is going to win this one.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've already told you why I agree that the EO is unconstitutional. You demanding that I constantly repeat myself isn't going to magically alter the trajectory of this conversation.

Because the Judge says it is is a poor answer, unfortunately. And because Trump said something one time doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you cannot refer to the EO itself and recite exactly where it is illegal or unconstitutional, you have nothing.

|___________|

You SAY I have nothing, but as it stands the EO is being held up for the very reasons I said. So in reality YOU are the one with nothing since you are currently arguing with the state of reality.

What you have is a liberal judge over reaching. It will be cleared up soon enough.

a reply to: UKTruth

Guilliani's conversation about how to make this EO work legally is probably going to be the nail in the coffin for it. Plus Trump is killing his legal position when he talks about it at his rallies. Words DO matter and Trump is about to learn the hard way that you can't just say anything and always get away with it.