Federal Court shuts down Trump's Travel Ban.

[MoonlessNight]

I think that we are to the point where President Trump should just ignore the judicial order, saying that since it is based on personal animosity instead of reasoned judicial review, that it is invalid.

If parsing hypothetical motives based on speculation and personal hunches is good enough for the judicial branch, it's good enough for the executive branch.

 

[super animator]

President Trump should just ignore the judicial order

NO NO NO NO NONONONONONONONONONO! THAT GOES AGAINST THE NOTATION OF BALANCE OF POWER AND SET A BAD PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS!

 

[MoonlessNight]

NO NO NO NO NONONONONONONONONONO! THAT GOES AGAINST THE NOTATION OF BALANCE OF POWER AND SET A BAD PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS!

It's clear that neither the legislative, the executive, nor the judicial branch care about precedent at this point anyway. If they want to grab power they will. So we might as well grab power when will do something worthwhile, since tyrants in the future aren't going to wring their hands about whether people in 2017 did everything by the book before they make their power grabs.

We've had decades of de facto laws by judicial activism and executive orders, among other things. The separation of power is not only dead, but it's been dead long enough that it's corpse has decayed pretty badly by this point.

 

[MoonlessNight]

good.

And in relation to the last post, I'll note that you don't seem to care about the fallout set by the precedent of judges saying that what is constitutional and what is not constitutional depends on what someone might have been thinking at some point in the past. It's a way of determining the validity of law created out of thin air and which is open to tremendous potential for abuse (since it is always possible to claim that someone had malicious intent), but apparently that doesn't bother you one bit.

I posit that this is because you understand as well as I do that the notion of separation of powers is dead and rotting.

 

[super animator]

It's clear that neither the legislative, the executive, nor the judicial branch care about precedent at this point anyway.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that your "suggestion" is asinine.

And in relation to the last post, I'll note that you don't seem to care about the fallout set by the precedent of judges saying that what is constitutional and what is not constitutional depends on what someone might have been thinking at some point in the past.

Laws do not exist in a vacuum. Intent does indeed matter.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that your "suggestion" is asinine.

You argue that we shouldn't do things because it would set a bad precedent, leading to bad future consequences.

I state that no one cares about precedent anyway at this point.

If this is true, then it doesn't matter what precedents we set in terms of what will happen in the future, since no one will care about them anyway when deciding what to do.

Thus, if my claim is correct, your worries are for naught. But yet you say that this point is "irrelevant." Do you even know what that word means, or did it just have enough letters in it that you thought you'd look smart if you threw it around?

 

[Nithavela]

NO NO NO NO NONONONONONONONONONO! THAT GOES AGAINST THE NOTATION OF BALANCE OF POWER AND SET A BAD PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS!

What do you mean, future presidents?

But I agree. What your judicial system needs is to be brought under the heel of the ruling party. That is the best way to make a country great again.

 

[TLK Valentine]

i don't give a dang about what he spouted.

Clearly you're not a judge.

besides news services have screwed it over nine days from sunday anyways. I don't care if he believes muslims should burn or americans should be doing the hokey pokey.

Again, clearly (and quite fortunately), you're no judge.

I'm much more concerned about what is written into law, statute, or command. if the wording is the same or near the same as the first one then there isn't anything in it to suggest what they are claiming here.
if this law is a problem (and i think it is) then we need to get congress to repeal or modify it.

Was there anything in Jim Crow laws which specifically said "This is to keep the blacks as second-class citizens and prevent them from exercising their rights as Americans," or were we able to figure that out without it being spoonfed to us?

If the latter, how did we ever make such a leap of logic, and is it not possible that we could do so again?

and more than that i'm more concerned at how the powers of the branches of gov have been upset. how they are behaving in total is much more disconcerting than just one single individual.

All the branches, including the executive?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Was there anything in Jim Crow laws which specifically said "This is to keep the blacks as second-class citizens and prevent them from exercising their rights as Americans," or were we able to figure that out without it being spoonfed to us?

The judge has stated that there is nothing in the travel ban itself which would make it unconstitutional, had it not been proposed by President Trump.

You'd have to be pretty blind to say that the text of the Jim Crow laws themselves lack anything constitutional. It's not like they were overturned because people reviewed what the legislators said about the laws before they were proposed. The laws themselves were clearly things that needed to be overturned, regardless of what anyone who created them said.

 

[TLK Valentine]

t's not all, but with an organization that has already admitted that they would purposefully infiltrate with refugees and take advantage of that, then we should ban them for now until we can fix our issue. America isn't the only nation in the world that could take refugees, UK can take em if they want to.

That "organization" being ISIS, correct?

Now, even if we assume for the moment that ISIS is being completely honest and telling us the unvarninshed truth (and hey, if you can't trust the terrorists, who can you trust?), doesn't the act of us changing our laws and policies based on the fear of their words and actions mean that they have effectively won the war on terror?

The goal of terrorism is to use violence and fear of violence to cause political/social change -- they say "boo!" you get scared, you change your ways.

I have no doubt they'll accept your surrender, seeing as how you've given them exactly what they wanted all along.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The judge has stated that there is nothing in the travel ban itself which would make it unconstitutional, had it not been proposed by President Trump.

Which one? There were thirteen judges on the panel... ten of which decided this EO didn't pass the smell test.

 

[MoonlessNight]

That "organization" being ISIS, correct?

Now, even if we assume for the moment that ISIS is being completely honest and telling us the unvarninshed truth (and hey, if you can't trust the terrorists, who can you trust?), doesn't the act of us changing our laws and policies based on the fear of their words and actions mean that they have effectively won the war on terror?

The goal of terrorism is to use violence and fear of violence to cause political/social change -- they say "boo!" you get scared, you change your ways.

I have no doubt they'll accept your surrender, seeing as how you've given them exactly what they wanted all along.

It's a real shame that the US was goaded into attacking Japan just because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Getting us into a war was exactly what they expected from that attack. A real victory would have been if the US had trudged along with business as usual, refusing to acknowledge the Japanese no matter how many times they attacked the US.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's a real shame that the US was goaded into attacking Japan just because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Getting us into a war was exactly what they expected from that attack. A real victory would have been if the US had trudged along with business as usual, refusing to acknowledge the Japanese no matter how many times they attacked the US.

Your comparison might carry more weight if we both agreed that every single Muslim in the Middle East belonged in the same category as the government of Japan at the start of WWII.

Furthermore, those of us who have studied history know that Pearl Harbor had, in fact, the exact opposite effect on the US that the Japanese intended...

While you're working all that out, perhaps you can answer me a simple (for me) question:

Assuming for the moment that ISIS are actual people, and not cheesy villains in a James Bond movie, why would they tell us that they're infiltrating as refugees? Why not keep their secret plan... you know... secret?

 

[Senkaku]

That "organization" being ISIS, correct?

Now, even if we assume for the moment that ISIS is being completely honest and telling us the unvarninshed truth (and hey, if you can't trust the terrorists, who can you trust?), doesn't the act of us changing our laws and policies based on the fear of their words and actions mean that they have effectively won the war on terror?

The goal of terrorism is to use violence and fear of violence to cause political/social change -- they say "boo!" you get scared, you change your ways.

I have no doubt they'll accept your surrender, seeing as how you've given them exactly what they wanted all along.

it really doesn't matter what they say, it's just common sense. when in war with someone you don't give them ground. honestly, its a double jeopardy, you don't win either way, so in that case, you need to do what is more logical. It's similar to the case king Solomon had to deal with with those two women, you have to do the more wise thing. Wisdom would not allow a greater chance of danger. It's not cowardice or fear to protect, I didn't say don't attack them. you need a sword and a shield to do battle, it's called balance. We advance on them while protecting our backs at the same time. I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this concept. Are you implying we back down without attacking? I don't picture us not advancing.

 

[Nithavela]

it really doesn't matter what they say, it's just common sense. when in war with someone you don't give them ground.

Actually, if you're smart, you realise that sometimes in war, the best way to fight the war is to give ground. If the only thing you are willing to do is advance into any perceived source of danger, you get highly predictable and easy to control.

 

[ananda]

I think that we are to the point where President Trump should just ignore the judicial order, saying that since it is based on personal animosity instead of reasoned judicial review, that it is invalid.

If parsing hypothetical motives based on speculation and personal hunches is good enough for the judicial branch, it's good enough for the executive branch.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and it seems like it is the 4th Circuit which has gone rogue against its superiors:

The Supreme Court has already decided that the Law set by Congress regarding aliens is the Law to be followed: "Any procedure authorized by Congress for the exclusion of aliens is due process, so far as an alien denied entry is concerned." (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)

The Law as set by Congress: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." (Congress, 8 USC 1182)

 

[He is Risen 72]

It will pass the Supreme Court and then we will be a little safer from the violent extremists that want to enter and destroy our country.

 

[Nithavela]

It will pass the Supreme Court and then we will be a little safer from the violent extremists that want to enter and destroy our country.

Any estimation how much safer you will be, considering the nationality of past terrorists?

 

[Senkaku]

Actually, if you're smart, you realise that sometimes in war, the best way to fight the war is to give ground. If the only thing you are willing to do is advance into any perceived source of danger, you get highly predictable and easy to control.

yes, ONLY if there is a strategy involved for it, but our actions are speaking louder than our words with this one. We aren't using this tactically, it is only for America's public image or to be politically correct. We live in a time where cry babies rule. unfortunately, the ones who cry the loudest are in charge. We need to grow up and open our eyes, things aren't getting better with the way we are doing stuff. but hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[Nithavela]

yes, ONLY if there is a strategy involved for it, but our actions are speaking louder than our words with this one. We aren't using this tactically, it is only for America's public image or to be politically correct. We live in a time where cry babies rule. unfortunately, the ones who cry the loudest are in charge. We need to grow up and open our eyes, things aren't getting better with the way we are doing stuff. but hey, that's just my opinion.

Now here's something I can agree with, the loudest crybaby is indeed in charge.