Judge blocks part of Trump's sanctuary cities executive order

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Checks and balances are important, but at this point it's starting to feel more like an irrational gang up than the judges just doing their job. I would advise them to be careful because nothing good ever comes out of backing someone into a corner, they might achieve the opposite of what they're attempting to do.

He hasn't had the patience to go through an appeal process but eventually he's going to have to, clearly the 9th circuit wish to act as political opposition, far askew from the role of a judge. I'd very much like to see Trump pack the 9th as much as possible with those who actually understand the limitations of the judiciary. In Marbury v. Madison style these judges wish to accomplish what couldn't be done in the election. It's pretty silly that one has to rely on an upper court to systematically strike down lower court stupidity. If only this kangaroo court could be dismantled or perhaps more circuits added to give these courts far less spread. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by IAMX

[8bit_Theatre 64]

I don't think they thought of the ramifications. Much of the Federal / State system is based upon the federal government using a carrot to have the states comply with uniform law. I mentioned one earlier. Their judgement could unravel all of that and severely weaken the Federal government. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

You could argue that. I'm not a supporter of most aspects of sanctuary cities so by and large I have no problem with whatever methods need to be used to get them to comply so long as it's constitutional. At this point, I'm not buying that it's not, although I haven't had a chance to look into all the specifics of the EO yet. The first judge that ruled on the travel ban, I had no problem with because that was a badly thought out EO and I think most of us here admitted it. The second time, I thought they made many positive changes and it seemed a little petty but whatever. This one is really starting to just feel like a gang up. We'll see how it all works out I guess, but if I were them I'd keep my powder dry for a while.

Agreed. They should comply as long as it is constructional and following the law. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

12 minutes ago, IAMX said:

He hasn't had the patience to go through an appeal process but eventually he's going to have to, clearly the 9th circuit wish to act as political opposition, far askew from the role of a judge. I'd very much like to see Trump pack the 9th as much as possible with those who actually understand the limitations of the judiciary. In Marbury v. Madison style these judges wish to accomplish what couldn't be done in the election. It's pretty silly that one has to rely on an upper court to systematically strike down lower court stupidity. If only this kangaroo court could be dismantled or perhaps more circuits added to give these courts far less spread. 

So you're for a stacked deck as long as it meets your agenda? 

[IAMX 3,055]

17 minutes ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

I don't think they thought of the ramifications. Much of the Federal / State system is based upon the federal government using a carrot to have the states comply with uniform law. I mentioned one earlier. Their judgement could unravel all of that and severely weaken the Federal government. 

I certainly like states having their own say but there's no ambiguity where Constitutional authority lies with Trumps immigration EOs. The states have absolutely none. If they wish to create immigration policy I'd suggest they declare independence and form their own federal government. Relying on circuit courts is a funny way of trying to have a say where you have none. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

24 minutes ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

I don't think they thought of the ramifications. Much of the Federal / State system is based upon the federal government using a carrot to have the states comply with uniform law. I mentioned one earlier. Their judgement could unravel all of that and severely weaken the Federal government. 

wait...are you saying that our government is threatened by this one judgement?  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

So you're for a stacked deck as long as it meets your agenda? 

They have a stacked deck ( Congress, Most Governorships, the Executive branch, the Supreme court) and still cannot meet their agenda through under the law of the land

Edited April 26, 2017 by ccneat

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

47 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Again,  the Republicans control all branches of the government, yet the whining continues. Perhaps a dictatorship would be more to your liking? Just a thought. 

So somewhere in your thinking the President doesn't really run the country the judges do? I am sure there's a name for a type of government where judges call the shots.

 

And you are quite happy that the next time there is a president from the democratic party in the White House constantly being challenged in the courts, doesn't bode well for future governments. Maybe your whining will get louder then, just a thought.

 

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

In an ideal world that what you would hope for but it can't be a coincidence that each judge so far was appointed by a democrat. And of course if the shoe was on the other foot republicans would be doing similar. Sure that's why there is such fuss each time a judge is to be appointed to the supreme court, each party trying to influence any future judgements.

 

I don't think the coincidence is on the courts' side. The coincidence is that Trump does not know what a president is supposed to act like, and he can't rule America like a monarch. He needs to govern with the Congress, not like a bully, signing EOs left and right.

[CaliCat 3,957]

8 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

So somewhere in your thinking the President doesn't really run the country the judges do? I am sure there's a name for a type of government where judges call the shots.

 

And you are quite happy that the next time there is a president from the democratic party in the White House constantly being challenged in the courts, doesn't bode well for future governments. Maybe your whining will get louder then, just a thought.

 

It's not in the poster's thinking. It's in the constitution. Neither the Oval nor the courts run the country. They both do. Together. That's how the system of check and balances work.  The reason that not one single branch of the government holds all the power is to avoid someone like Trump coming into power, and ruling by EO. 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by CaliCat

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

So somewhere in your thinking the President doesn't really run the country the judges do? I am sure there's a name for a type of government where judges call the shots.

 

And you are quite happy that the next time there is a president from the democratic party in the White House constantly being challenged in the courts, doesn't bode well for future governments. Maybe your whining will get louder then, just a thought.

 

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

40 minutes ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

I don't think they thought of the ramifications. Much of the Federal / State system is based upon the federal government using a carrot to have the states comply with uniform law. I mentioned one earlier. Their judgement could unravel all of that and severely weaken the Federal government. 

 

That's in the interest of the republicans. They believe the Federal government to be too big.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Neither the Oval nor the courts run the country. They both do. Together. That's how the system of check and balances work.  The reason that not one single branch of the government holds all the power is to avoid someone like Trump coming into power, and ruling by EO. 

 

 

And congress.  They've got the most power it seems

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

Neither the Oval nor the courts run the country. They both do. Together. That's how the system of check and balances work.  The reason that not one single branch of the government holds all the power is to avoid someone like Trump coming into power, and ruling by EO. 

 

 

I think I remember something about that in school..not sure

[Transborderwife 4,666]

7 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

So somewhere in your thinking the President doesn't really run the country the judges do? I am sure there's a name for a type of government where judges call the shots.

 

And you are quite happy that the next time there is a president from the democratic party in the White House constantly being challenged in the courts, doesn't bode well for future governments. Maybe your whining will get louder then, just a thought.

 

 

 

I'm sorry...I think you spelled winning wrong in there.  There's no H just another N