Big Lies

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced.  Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal.  This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively.  To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.

Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion.  I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid.  If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent.  The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.

On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people.  I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process.  He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges.  The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.

This reflects an ongoing question on my part.  Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right?  Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?

Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to stop viewing issues from a blues perspective to begin viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan label that you use can be used and  accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to an emotionally guided blues perspective. Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around for decades or want's them all dead one way or another?  Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did Democrats bringing up their Muslim concerns, young Muslim emotional sob stories about feeling scared about being judged by Americans and using a poor Muslim still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trumps policies, change the way America voted?

Of course, judges are not presidents.  They are appointed by presidents and approved by Congress.  Their role is not to write laws or execute them, but to make sure the laws are being followed.

I actually sat down and read the ruling.  The standings and rights questions are settled enough in existing precedent.  For each of the following, there are court cases which establish or confirm the laws of the land.

• State colleges are port of the states, thus states have standing to bring court cases relating to their colleges.
  
• Students and faculty are part of said state colleges, thus the state has standing to bring court cases relating to state college students and faculty.
  
• Rights do not exist only for US Citizens.  People have rights.  If the government is interacting with the People, they have to respect said rights.
  
• A president can't just ignore all the laws and regulations regarding immigration.  Yes, security is a valid concern, but one must establish that each individual, one at a time, is a risk.
  

For years, I would say one cannot discriminate when providing goods and services to the public, but there were exceptions for homes, churches and private clubs. Conservative and libertarian posters just wouldn't listen... until I reprinted the key passage from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Too many people put their own prejudices ahead of rule of law, maintaining ignorance of the law to validate their prejudices. That seems to be where you are coming from.

Again, you are most confused in labeling the red perspective as being 'American'. FDR is at least as American as Reagan. Thomas Jefferson is at least as American as Ayn Rand. The country is well and truly divided with both sides having strong elements of logic, history and tradition behind them. Your reports from inside of one alternate reality bubble aren't irrelevant, but you shouldn't mistake your bubble for reality.