Politics : The Courts Lose All Credibility if they Block Trump for Fake Reasons

CTS said:

---

You have cited the 10th Amendment like it is some great revelation. However, the passage of the 14th expanded the coverage of 9/10 of the Bill of Rights to State actions. Nor is the 10th Amendment relevant to the issue of Federal Judicial authority to invalidate a Federal executive action, which is the core issue here.

---

He's speaking of that circa 1960 "Incorporation Doctrine", whereby the 14th amendment's passage "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is used by US Supr Cts to claim the first nine amendments of the US Const. now apply to state gov'ts so that the US Supr Cts can take cases by persons against their state gov'ts to claim state laws/constitutions (e.g. no homo marriage) are violations of the US Const.

Now, for instance, instead of US Supr Cts only being able to declare via 8th amend. federal gov't punishments cruel & unusual, they can also declare state gov't punishments the same. Now, instead of just requiring the fed police to read Miranda warnings to arrestees, it can be required for state/local cops. Now, instead of running Christianity out of the public square on federal property, it can be required of state/local gov't property as well. And on and on.

Essentially, if a minority group cannot get their policy enacted legislatively, they claim the policy was already enshrined in the US Const. and any fed/state statute or state const. is in violation. This happened blatantly with the homos who tried for years to change state marriage laws to include two dudes doing the pervert thing; which clearly shows the homos saw it as a 10th amendment issue and belonged in the state jurisdiction and that it was decided by majority vote. Many qualified voters saw that their state legislatures were toying with the idea of changing marriage legislative acts and quickly amended their state constitution so that no matter who was in the state legislature the definition in their state would be uncorrupted by homos. One man one woman.

Then the homos ran off to the activist US Supr Ct for their end run around democracy.

US Supr Cts ignore a genuine, honest-to-God doctrine effected in the US Const., ie federalism, via the 10th amendment (never repealed) and pretend another is in existence (incorporation doctrine) for which there is not even a sentence fragment justifying it.

Speaking of the 10th amendment.


You said:

---

It seems to intimidate you, and for good reason. The core issue is that the 14th doesn't invalidate the 10th. What SCOTUS rules is not the law of the land. The law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution gives SCOTUS the right to nullify a state's law. The states and the people have the right to reject and disregard any unconstitutional ruling by the federal judiciary. It was never open for debate.

---

You know, this idea that the 14th has superseded or invalidated the 10th amendment, was not in existence as late as the first term of Roosevelt's administration. That US Supr Ct struck down his new deal legislation with the 10th amendment. Obviously, those justices didn't think the 14th had superseded the 10th. The idea that the 14th superseded the 10th did not originate with the men of the 1860s who framed and the others who ratified the 14th.

None of this is taught to the American public in schools. There would be a societal wide condemnation of the US Supr Cts and their renegade behavior.

---

Why have state legislative bodies and state-level ballot initiatives at all if we can simply allow Washington to set all these things up? Because Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and a collection of others knew that to be a bad model of governance, and could foresee a future when that would need to be placed into check and did so via the 10th Amendment. It's a shame you failed basic civics.

---

Interesting that you talk about CTS failing basic civics, yet you name two men who had NOTHING to do with the drafting of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

---

Interesting that you talk about CTS failing basic civics, yet you name two men who had NOTHING to do with the drafting of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

---

Looks like you failed it, too, along with basic U.S. history. Jefferson was Madison's mentor, and his ideas were significant in the creation of the Bill of Rights. Given the quotes I posted, he makes sense over anything you or CTS would think up out of thin air. How telling is that?

It was a novel, Hemingway. That's why I called it such. How many times, is no matter. ONce, again.


Spare me please. I've seen the turds you drop around here. You use every tactic the LEFT uses. Therefore, you are LEFTIST. You are against the political Right. That makes you LEFT. You are the one who has started the childish invective with me, both here and on other threads. You may not have used names but you used personal attacks. And you know it.

Art III doesn't give any US Supr Ct court any such authority that you are claiming. And have claimed elsewhere.

And no President needs the permission of the judicial branch to perform executive functions of law. And the Congress has no authority to take away decision making about executive functions of law from the President. Cabinet depts. are to help the President perform a wide variety of Presidential duties by delegating the more routine and mundane to his underlings. Basic civics 101. Get a clue.

True conservative??? HA! You spend all your time spewing venom at conservatives. Like me and Trump. You should applaud Trump for what he has done so far and shout for more.

Barry Goldwater??? Didn't he vote against the fed overreach in regard to civil rights (criminalization of White people's freedom of association)? Pish tosh.

The Courts lost all their credibility a LONG TIME AGO, to those who have their eyes open.

That's the darned truth.

I remember in the early 1970s everyone and their damned brother was claiming Nixon was shredding the US Constitution. Truth was, that Constitution was in tatters when Nixon came into office early 1969 due to Earl Warren's court.

LIBS live in a fantasy world, you can't reason with them.

A President does not need the US Supr Ct's permission to perform executive functions of law. Trump, any President really, needs to tell that f^ing Court to bugger off. Separation of powers, LEFTIST judges.

Yeah, like all those LEFTIST Judges who kept invalidating chunks of Roosevelt's "New Deal" legislation on the grounds that it exceeded the powers of the Federal government.

Invalidating laws on Constitutional grounds was not just done by LEFTISTS.



Look- it's trying to think!

I never said every single judge ever was a LEFTIST, you god damned ign-f^ing-ramus. Roosevelt corrupted the courts in his second term.

Look - it's trying to reason.

---

It's fine for a judge to cry herself to sleep at night over Trump's "meanness." But to pretend that there is some constitutional reason that keeps him from carrying out his constitutional duty is absurd.

---

Why do you say pretend? There's a definite case for it's unconstitutionality from the

---

'prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.'

---

section, which while worded carefully not to mention islam and Christianity is certainly a clause to be interpreted in relation to the Establishment Clause, which is what the halt is about.

---

Trump is right. The left will be to blame for all future terrorist attacks committed by Muslim they have allowed to flood our nation.

---

Balderdash. The only immigrant terrorist attack by a muslim refugee in the last ten years is the Boston bombing.




"Paranoia is just another word for ignorance."
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

---

Balderdash. The only immigrant terrorist attack by a muslim refugee in the last ten years is the Boston bombing.

---

He/she wasn't talking about strictly muslim refugees. He/she said muslims that have flooded the USA. Plenty of muslims have been committing terror attacks. Are you that dense?

And there's been none, unless you want to deport actual citizens based upon religion, which is entirely unconstitutional.
but seriously, name the terrorist incidents by non-native born US citizens. Go on.



"Paranoia is just another word for ignorance."
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

A bigger question is not purely Constitutional, but statutory.

This Order pretty much ignored the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It has a feel of something that was done without running it past the usual channels.

Look- it's trying to think!

Ding. It was slap-dash and shoddily thought out.



"Paranoia is just another word for ignorance."
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

We Americans, real/genuine Americans, do not discern between natural born or immigrant muslims when it comes to terror attacks. Muslim is a muslim. It's what they do. In America, in Europe, in the mid East, everywhere.

"Muslim is a muslim. It's what they do."

In other words, you are a bigot who can't respect people different from yourself.

Oh, and you hate Muslims a lot.

'Go get an education, learn to talk you first language, lerarn to spell countries names' nidii-76417

No, not bigot. I am against islam and all adherents. They are terrorists and support absolute gov't.

More BS used to justify your own xenophobia.

'Go get an education, learn to talk you first language, lerarn to spell countries names' nidii-76417

Dislike of muslims is entirely justified.

1.7 billion people do not want to kill you.

You are paranoid if you think otherwise.

'Go get an education, learn to talk you first language, lerarn to spell countries names' nidii-76417

1.7B islamovagrants, who spawn the next group of terror bombers. World would be better off without them.

Temp setback.

Imagine if they said the same thing to Bush on 9-12.

You have no right!

The courts don't need credibility. The judges will have their jobs long after Trump loses his.



Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary.

What were these "fake reasons", Ollie?

Now that the boards are disappearing, are you going to come clean about your promise that you would quit the boards for good if Herman Cain didn't get the GOP nomination and your subsequent cowardly avoidance of said promise?

"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" - Hada

At a certain point courts will lose meaning and/or be forced to become politicized if they can't figure out which side they're on.

Twelve_bar, you get a standing ovation for this entire thread. You used logic and rebutted every silly point made by detractors. (Honestly I felt like every answer you gave would be how I respond. I honestly had to stop for a second to remember if I had actually written those things lol. But nope, it was you.)

You brought the . Well done.

"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Judge Judy
Keep free speech and free thought alive!

Trump loses all credibility when he tweets threats in the middle of the night.



Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary.

The Supreme Court said in 1950:

---

"The president may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants whenever he thinks it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

---

The Original 'The Trashcan Man' since 2001

It'scalled Judikative, Legislative and Exekutive.
But you Trumpist-wannabe-dictator-*beep*suckers won't get that concept

No, we understand the three branches of power, and we understand the powers of the Judicial branch, trouble is we know the Judicial branch is supposed to judge whether a law conflicts with a higher law and the recent rulings about Trumps travel limitations don't do that. They play semantic games about what he thought, and do not focus on what he actually did.

Ex IMDb users forum here: http://area51.boardhost.com/index.php

That is true to an extent, but like it or not for decades whether or not a law has discriminatory intent has been ingrained in the constitutional evaluation of such measure, particularly when it comes to key areas like race and religion.

And there was Trump in the election saying he wanted to ban all Muslims from coming in. Know it was long before he moved, but still there on record and something for the judges to consider.

And as is, wasn't a judgment on the merits. Only about whether to grant an injunction before full arguments were done. Could be Trump wins after that, least when Gorsuch is on the Top Court.