World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

When responding to another user you can multiple quote. It's just external sources. Like, if you want to talk about two different articles, instead of lumping them into one mammoth post where you quote from both articles but change topics half-way through, you just make one post for each article/topic.

[CRTGAMER]

...you idiots!

I am a pretty smart guy, but judges appointed to a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals operate on a different level. Even when I do not agree with their judicial philosophy, I always respect their intellects and knowledge of the law immensely. I wouldn't refer to any of them as "idiots"...

You just did exactly what the Mainstream News Media does, edit my quote without the whole story to bring emotion. That stated, my apologies to the Judicial system that you are part of.

Anyways, here is the entire content related to the slur:

Especially the female voice which I think is 9th district Judge Michelle Friedland keeps throwing in questioning if the President can be challenged if it were a specific Muslim ban. Already known many other Muslim countries not banned and all immigrants which includes all religions are banned in the designated countries. Not even following what the ban is, trying to put emotion guilt into the case. Its the location you idiots!

Do you think the assumed motivation behind the executive order or the actual law as stated in the Homeland Security should be the weighing decision?

I think if I understand the Seattle judge's ruling, the assumed motivation is the issue. This to me is interpretation and not following the law in the books. It puts a personal view into the equation which does not seem ethical. Yes he is a respected Judge, but does that allow him to circumvent the law for his views?

Take a read and scroll all the way down to Article 212 Section F Immigration Law, pretty clear what it states. The President in complete authority to issue a proclamation to ban immigration as he alone decides. I would have quoted it direct here again for clarity, but waiting for the Moderator Quote ruling in this Thread.

It is dangerous when Judges have this kind of power, overruling policy of the government. They are not privy to all the top secret information that the Federal Branch has to respond to. As I mentioned before, this should not just be an Executive Order; Congress needs to be involved in the immigration ban and immediately to resolve this! As it stands the law allows the Presidental order; change the law if it is wrong.

[marurun]

It is dangerous when Judges have this kind of power, overruling policy of the government. They are not privy to all the top secret information that the Federal Branch has to respond to. As I mentioned before, this should not just be an Executive Order; Congress needs to be involved in the immigration ban and immediately to resolve this! As it stands the law allows the Presidental order; change the law if it is wrong.

What? This is utter nonsense. It is dangerous when the judiciary lacks this power, because that check on legislative power and executive authority is necessary to maintain government balance. Look how many other countries descent into martial law because their prime ministers suspend their supreme court and judiciary. Judges don't just invalidate stuff like this without hearing testimony. If the government has information that justifies this in the law, the judge will hear it, or at least hear more detail about it, and incorporate that into the ruling. You're acting as if the president's executive order has already been struck dead. That suggests you know the EO is a problem and may not be entirely OK in the eyes of the law.

[CRTGAMER]

That Seattle judge put a hold which in affect stops the Executive Order. The danger is a circuit court judge has decided and changed Federal law in stopping a presidential proclamation. Here is the law as mentioned in my previous post. Judges read it, adjourned and go home.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB ... -2364.html



Act 212(b)
f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

[marurun]

Why do you keep posting images to accompany your articles? This is a forum, not a news site. Those images are purely cosmetic and don't inform your posts in any way. They just take up space.

And the stay on the EO is temporary, until a court can resolve the lawsuits, and these suits have been fast-tracked so far. The Trump administration could have requested it go directly to the Supreme Court and potentially sped this up quite a bit, but has not. Stays are a perfectly normal judicial tool. I find it very odd that you are declaring such basic and essential aspects of our legal system of being somehow invalid. This is normal and good. This is part of the process.

[prfsnl_gmr]

This is normal and good. This is part of the process.

+1

Judges read it, adjourned and go home.

Also...it's a just a little bit more complicated than that.

[Sarge]

Here's a reading from a right-leaning point of view.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/trump ... itutional/

[CRTGAMER]

Here's a reading from a right-leaning point of view.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/trump ... itutional/

THIS and no need to defend as a right leaning view when it is rightly correct. The article makes sense to me even if Senator Schumer himself read it off on the congressional floor. I wonder how many will even attempt to click with that "right-leaning" warning on your link though. The battle continues in the 9th circuit in what should be quick common sense in following the existing law.

As to why going thru the 9th District, that is the next step to the Supreme Court. A smart move exposing the 9th district with calls now of breaking up the mountain of judicial mess, not meaning offense to our Racketboy Lawyer. Bide the time for Nuclear Explosion until the very last minute to further expose red state democrats and get the Supreme Court Judge in and kill this nonsense later on.

I am so tempted to put Jack Nicholson "Handle Truth" image up right now, but I'll "stay".

My reason why the existing Law should stay (instead of the Seattle Judge's stay) with my take on a new amendment.

1. The President as Article 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) stands has complete personal authority to enact the Immigration Ban. Security of the nation needs an immediate response, it is why this law exists and has been used by the current and past administrations.

2. An Amendment should be added to allow the Congressional vote to nullify or support the ban. The amendment the best way due to a security action at times needs an immediate proclamation and not waiting for debate by congress. The same rule should apply in the courts, sort it out without pausing any Executive Action.

Imagine if a terrorist attack did happen say six months from now as a result of the increased and then paused security action due to the restraining order. Who should answer to the victims and who should decide what security should be in place right now and not a week from now?

Senator Sessions approval vote almost in just confirmed, time to clean house!

[MrPopo]

CRT, do you happen to know the statistics on how likely you are to be directly affected by a terrorist attack?

[CRTGAMER]

CRT, do you happen to know the statistics on how likely you are to be directly affected by a terrorist attack?

No matter what the odds, no American life is worth the risk. The odds of an attack certainly have increased by the combination of the Ban enacted and now paused. It leads back to my query in my previous Reply concerning responsibility.

What do you think of the current law and my proposal of the amendment? Seems to me an amendment should already be in for the Federal Congress and NOT judges scattered in individual states to over rule any Presedential Executive Action.