The Trump Presidency

Julio3000 said:
I tend to think that they'll re-draft the EO and quietly drop the appeal. Of course, that would be a very non-Trumpian move, so maybe my common-sense compass is still not calibrated to this WH.
Click to expand...

The problem (for them) is there is a record of public comments that they are seeking to enact a Muslim ban that will pass constitutional muster. I don't think any sort of Muslim ban (except maybe something very narrowly tailored) can pass constitutional muster.
 
nsacpi said:
The problem (for them) is there is a record of public comments that they are seeking to enact a Muslim ban that will pass constitutional muster. I don't think any sort of Muslim ban (except maybe something very narrowly tailored) can pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons that I don't think they want to see this case proceed and be argued on its merits...which is further advertisement for how slipshod and amateurish this thing is. You can only go so far on bluster and bull****.
 
Julio3000 said:
That's one of the reasons that I don't think they want to see this case proceed and be argued on its merits...which is further advertisement for how slipshod and amateurish this thing is. You can only go so far on bluster and bull****.
Click to expand...

There's a pretty obvious reason that the 9th didn't bother to conclusively find on the bad faith allegation: in this context it's absolutely unheard of and could establish a slippery-slope precedent.

It was thrown in there as ACLU chum and it's not going anywhere.

There are more important questions here that, at this point, require concrete answers. Due process rights for illegal aliens being the paramount.
 
nsacpi said:
The problem (for them) is there is a record of public comments that they are seeking to enact a Muslim ban that will pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorney’s campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was “bad faith or harassment.” As the court explained, even looking at such statements would “chill debate during campaign.” If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: “the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the public’s judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-presidential-policy/?utm_term=.e924fd8075a6
 
I think courts absolutely have an obligation to consider motivation...literacy requirements are not per se illegal but used as cover to suppress black voting certainly are...in the same way claims of national security cannot be used as a cloak for unconstitutional actions
 
nsacpi said:
i think anyone failing to see the difference in the lies of a normal politician and those of Mr trump is being willfully obtuse...and yes that goes for u too
Click to expand...

Lol. Come on. At some point, you have to look at the bigger picture and stop getting bogged down in the petty sensationalism. It's tiresome.
 
Hawk said:
Lol. Come on. At some point, you have to look at the bigger picture here and stop getting bogged down in the petty sensationalism. It's tiresome.
Click to expand...

It is sensational to claim that 3.5 million fraudulent votes were cast against him...petty? I don't think so...and then there was the small racist lie about his predecessor
 
Hawk said:
If you believe that SCOTUS will unanimously uphold the 9th circuit's decision you might be in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...

LOL. Why would anyone with a brain think that? Along party lines 5-4 to overturn would be where I'd begin, assuming the new guy is in.

My awakening is long past, and it was indeed somewhat rude.
 
Hawk said:
There's a pretty obvious reason that the 9th didn't bother to conclusively find on the bad faith allegation: in this context it's absolutely unheard of and could establish a slippery-slope precedent.

It was thrown in there as ACLU chum and it's not going anywhere.

There are more important questions here that, at this point, require concrete answers. Due process rights for illegal aliens being the paramount.
Click to expand...

Illegal aliens?
 
Hawk said:
Lol. Come on. At some point, you have to look at the bigger picture and stop getting bogged down in the petty sensationalism. It's tiresome.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I can't share your (apparently intoxicatingly) expansive viewpoint.

There's a baseline level of trust and credibility that anyone needs to effectively lead, well, anything, much less a country. Repeating endlessly debunked lies and conspiracy theories like verbal tics tends to be corrosive to establishing trust and credibility.

What *I* find tiresome is your telling people that it's not a concern. Sure, following the daily outrage like six-year-olds follow the ball on the soccer field may get ridiculous...but pointing out that it could be a genuine problem to have a President who's a reflexive, incredible bull****ter? I think we're all going to have to re-calibrate our expectations a tad.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Pence is also gay.
Click to expand...

Wonder%20Woman%20gif_zpsudwkbygn.jpg


We do NOT claim him!
 
Hawk said:
Lol. Come on. At some point, you have to look at the bigger picture and stop getting bogged down in the petty sensationalism. It's tiresome.
Click to expand...

Can you briefly summarize the bigger picture for me? Less than a page in length, please, and no more than nine bullet points.
 
nsacpi said:
It is sensational to claim that 3.5 million fraudulent votes were cast against him...petty? I don't think so...and then there was the small racist lie about his predecessor
Click to expand...

No, it's not petty.

But if you can't hear dog whistles when they are sounded . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top