It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court - 5 to 4 ruling - Trump travel ban stands

page: 9
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No, I don't think I'm missing that fact X. I've posted several times that the question regarding the Establishment Clause is a constitutional question.

The primary finding, however, that SCOTUS drew a straight line to in their reversal, was Trump's explcit authority granted under 8 USC 1182 (f).

Neither I nor anyone else has said here that is it not at all a Constitutional question (indeed, how could we have referred to the First Amendment and done so) merely that the primary question was Presidential authority under statute. (Although, as I pointed out above Justice Thomas stated that excluding aliens was not only a statutory power but an inherent one, which is a) both profound and substantial and b) would make this an "Article III" matter.

Like I said, in my opinion, these distictions are minor in the overal scheme of things.

President Trump won. Can't we agree on that? LOL
edit on 27-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I heard a rumor (maybe rooted in Thomas' statements?) that the Supreme Court was considering a ruling that would let Trump fire Federal judges. The more I think of that, the less I like it. Too much power to the Executive Branch.

On the other hand, what you say about jurisdiction is certainly true. I seriously hope the Supreme Court takes the time to roll a few heads in their own section of the swamp. Armadillos have been using Federal activist judges to get their agenda passed without worrying about legislation or Presidential powers, essentially setting the Judicial Branch up as an unchecked branch of government. Immigration especially should be out of the venue of any court below appellate, as it by definition affects the entire country.

Our founding fathers had a wonderful idea in slowing down change in government. Public opinion, especially in this day and age of instant worldwide social media, is extremely volatile; government should not be. The Senate has staggered 6-year terms for this very reason: the House can shift 180 degrees on a single election night, but the Senate cannot. The courts are the pinnacle of this philosophy, as judges are appointed for life. The Supreme Court can change with the times, but it changes slowly. Therefore it weathers short lived fads. As long as the court cleans its own house, that stability is maintained.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The precedent is concerning.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

From what Thomas said, those nationwide edicts have only been issued since the 1960s.

One wonders why it has taken SCOTUS 50 years or more to address it!

Agree with you completely that the Executive doesn't need to be firing Federal judges ... that's not the way it works (speaking of a Constitutional matter). Appoint with confirmation in the Senate. Nothing about "de-appointment."



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Indeed it is.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Further, allow me to echo your sentiment at the elegant beauty and seminal nature of the Constitution, the importance of which, I truly believe, will survive the United States itself.




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Weird.
Now, back to our normal status:
I wonder how Merrick would have decided.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The wheels of justice grind slowly... yet they grind exceedingly small.

The more I think of it, the more sense it makes to me for the Supreme Court to just establish venue for the lower courts based on their jurisdiction. That should be a "d'oh!" but apparently it is not. A Federal court in Hawaii should not be able to place a verdict on the state of Alabama, not should our circuit have the ability to make decisions for Hawaii. I earlier posted that I thought immigration cases should not be reviewable beneath the appellate level, but I want to amend that statement: only the Supreme Court should have such jurisdiction. They are the only court whose jurisdiction covers the entire country.

And yes, we are definitely in agreement of Executive firing of judges. At the very least, require Congressional approval... but leaving it in the hands of the Judicial is still far preferable.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A moot point. Merrick is not a Supreme Court Justice.

Not to mention, I know precious little of his approach to Constitutional law.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
WINNING....


it is mind boggling how many Americans are fighting so hard to keeping America ''losing'' from the past few administrations policies

like... do you guys read? do you comprehend? get on the god damn same page as the rest of the country and HELP AMERICA

it was never a good idea allowing masses of people into the country - when their country has a clear desire to murder Americans and destroy its government..



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




A moot point.


Indeed.

Did you see McConnell's little victory tweet?



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, I didn't. I've been hunched over a soldering iron most of the day.

What did he tweet?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
A picture of him shaking hands with Gorsuch.

Subtle.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yeah, like he had that much to do with the appointment. I'm honestly surprised he let it come to a vote.

Not a huge fan of McConnell. You listening Kentucky? You can do better.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Yeah, like he had that much to do with the appointment.

He had a leetle bit to do with Merrick not having a chance though.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm just going to say it sickens me that so much bias exists on the supreme court that this decision was not 9-0.

The judges that voted against are not doing their job. They are supposed to make decisions on the law and the law could not get much clearer in this case.

Sotomayor wanted to use outside evidence of intent like Trump tweets and pre-election comments to show religious animus. That's dangerous because what's ultimately in the executive order might not be consistent with loose remarks. There needed to be evidence in the order itself. Of course, there wasn't. She also ignored that the Obama administration originally identified these as countries of concern. Roberts pointed out that only 8% of foreign muslim population was affected. If this were really just a product of prejudice towards muslims, what's the point in excluding 8%? It's stupid. What Trump did in talking to America was be honest and point out that these terrorist incidents are usually conducted by radical muslims of troubled areas of the world. If Bush would have implemented the ban, he simply would have never mentioned that terrorists tend to be muslim, and then there would be almost no ability to challenge it at all even though the whole world would understand that he was trying to keep radical islamists out, just not expressly saying such. And if a president is trying to keep ISIS out and some innocent people are affected, maybe it's justified from a national security perspective at times. Look at what's been happening with the nightclub shootings, bombings, car attacks, etc. It's scary. And honestly, I think airports and flights are the top concern, and the foremost reason for the ban.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Agreed.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The problem was that you were taking a specific and trying to apply it to a general. This decision had nothing to do with any other future actions. It was only about one EO and the lawsuits surrounding it.


I took no specific and applied it to the general. I took the issue in general and made a statement about it. That statement holds true.



I honestly could not understand your question. You kept saying the President has authority but that authority was somehow not necessarily constitutional? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, when I explained why it made no sense, you insisted that it did and asked the same thing in the same way again.


I never once questioned the presidents authority, or whether or not it was constitutional. That is why your explanation was unnecessary and irrelevant to my point.



That gets frustrating. It feels like trying to talk to a stubborn 6-year-old.


I agree. You didn't even know what my point was, yet you insisted on arguing against it.

That doesn't make much sense, does it?
edit on 27-6-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your partisan hack is showing.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Your partisan hack is showing.


What was partisan about that post?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join