|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
26th April 2017, 07:29 PM | #81 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
|
Any reason why the Congressional Republicans won't do this now? I haven't looked at poll numbers, but I'd wager it's a pretty popular idea among Republican voters.
|
26th April 2017, 07:30 PM | #82 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:32 PM | #83 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
26th April 2017, 07:37 PM | #84 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
Here's a great article explaining where we're at.
https://www.conservativereview.com/a...ngress-respond |
26th April 2017, 07:39 PM | #85 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:43 PM | #86 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
26th April 2017, 07:45 PM | #87 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Ok. Thanks.
What an absolutely awful legal analysis, though. Unfortunately, I don't have time to address it at the moment, but the guy who wrote the article is just plain wrong. And it isn't really much of an analysis at all, given that it took a whole bunch of political stuff to get through before ever getting to the legal part, which was spotty at best. The core of the problem appears to be (I'll look later to confirm, this is after a quick skim) that the order targets funding that has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. If a President can cut off highway funds because he doesn't like immigration, or any other, policy, he pretty much has dictatorial powers. Trump would probably like that, but it never ends well. |
26th April 2017, 08:29 PM | #88 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
|
26th April 2017, 10:59 PM | #89 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
26th April 2017, 11:08 PM | #90 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
26th April 2017, 11:16 PM | #91 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
Totally agree. But I find that's the same for much reporting on legal cases. It's like when we hear "we will be appealing the judgement" but no mention what point of law is being appealed. Lots of people seem to think that if you get a judgement you don't like you can have another go at it!
So if the Trump administration is going to appeal this what is the point of law that they believe either hasn't been addressed or addressed incorrectly? |
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
26th April 2017, 11:26 PM | #92 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
27th April 2017, 02:15 AM | #93 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 02:33 AM | #94 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 8,185
|
Trump is talking about breaking up the 9th Circuit Court after the judge dared resist the will of the all-mighty God-Emperor.
Quote:
Yes, "many people", his most popular source of information. |
27th April 2017, 03:07 AM | #95 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 04:04 AM | #96 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I've had a chance now to take a look at the article, but I've decided not to do a lengthy analysis of it, just because I doubt anyone, including you, is all that interested in it. If I'm wrong about that, I can comment more.
The article, for those who don't want to click the link, is basically a polemic against liberal judges. It doesn't quote from the ruling or even provide a link to it. It makes some vague references to it. My favorite part was a set of enumerated points about the ruling. After some introductory paragraphs about how important this all is, the author provides this:
Originally Posted by article
The rest of the analysis is of the same caliber. There are errors of fact, and errors of logic. The one point that I think could possibly have been correct and worthy of comment would be an argument about whether or not there was a live case of controversy before the court, which would affect standing. On that point, perhaps a case could be made, but the article doesn't bother with any justification or reference to the ruling, but merely asserts that the judge erred, with no defense. I still cannot say whether I agree with or disagree with the ruling, because I still haven't read the ruling or any description of it with enough content to understand the essence of the ruling. However, from little hints here and there, it seems to me that Trump was trying to say that we weren't going to spend money in the manner that the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, provides for. He can't do that, so the ruling is probably ok. I can't be sure, because news organizations don't see fit to cover the actual law when describing legal rulings, but that is not all that uncommon. |
27th April 2017, 04:32 AM | #97 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:03 AM | #98 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:20 AM | #99 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
27th April 2017, 08:50 AM | #100 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
27th April 2017, 08:53 AM | #101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that this article, very light on the legal argument, totally ignores that South Dakota v. Dole was a ruling about Congressional authority.
I love how in right wing circles the powers of Congress have now become "Federal Government" powers. Is this what you folks identify as "clever"? |
27th April 2017, 09:20 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Especially considering that, as far as I understand it, the whole point of the ruling was that with the EO, the President unconstitutionally tried to use authority that is reserved for Congress. As illustrated by cases such as SD v Dole.
Basically, it needs to be a law, not just an EO. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
27th April 2017, 09:26 AM | #103 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Here is a Volokh Conspiracy lawyer (ilya Somin) calling that the order would be overturned for exact reasons the Judge used all the way back in January.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4e9737f2ac27 |
7th May 2017, 07:04 PM | #104 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
|
So now Texas has banned sanctuary cities at the state level. Be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
10th May 2017, 11:17 AM | #105 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
|
So now a bunch of people in Texas are suing over the sanctuary city ban. I think that's for the best. Go ahead and fight it out in court so everyone has some idea of what their rights and obligations are.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05...nstitutionali/ http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...508-story.html |
11th May 2017, 06:52 AM | #106 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
The Sanctuary-Cities Executive Order Is Trump’s Next Legal Train Wreck
Hopefully Trumpf will be riding Pence or Putin when it wrecks!!!!!!!!!!! If he isn't holstering for one or the other of them!!! |
11th May 2017, 07:04 AM | #107 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
What's the point of being the most powerful person in the world if people won't do what you tell them?
|
17th May 2017, 10:38 AM | #108 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
|
Big series of raids today in LA targeting MS-13 leaders. Getting some national news. Joint federal/local operation including LAPD and ICE.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/us/ms-...les/index.html |
17th May 2017, 10:48 AM | #109 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|