Pages

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Thoughts on the 9th circuit appeal...

So we have the original plaintiffs making their case, there has been several states weighing in, as well as former Government officials providing friends of the court briefs, all making the same basic argument.

This law is unnecessary and therefor unjustified.

Reading some of the transcripts from the oral arguments reflects similar debate on the merits of the law, and whether there were unwritten intentions of  this being some sort of "Muslim ban". There is discussion surrounding why these Countries were chosen, what evidence there is that there is actual security concerns, and there was even discussion regarding newspaper articles about what so called surrogates of the President may or may not have said.



What has become increasingly apparent is a total disregard for the actual laws that govern this case. In fact, there is a basic concession even by the plaintiffs that the right exists for the President to create a travel ban, that there is legal precedent, and that there is statutory laws that back it. But the overall attitude is that the legality of the action is not what the court needs to be deciding.

As Senator Feinstein stated over the weekend, the Courts job is to provide "oversight" to runaway policy making. In other words, the left now believes that the Courts are no longer an arbitrator of legal disputes, but in fact they are also arbitrators of policy disputes.

To be abundantly clear here folks. This is a policy dispute disguised as a legal dispute. The Robart ruling offered as much, as do the arguments coming from the plaintiffs (and friends), as did much of the oral arguments being heard yesterday.

I would ask everyone here if that is really how they want the three branch checks and balances to evolve? That we now settle policy disputes, not through elections or congressional consensus, but rather we decide to provide the ultimate say to unelected Justices with lifetime appointments?  I would ask especially those who may be cheering today, but will be starting down a 5-4, 6-3, or possibly even a 7-2 conservative USSC for the foreseeable future.

34 comments:

Roger Amick said...

"I would ask especially those who may be cheering today, but will be starting down a 5-4, 6-3, or possibly even a 7-2 conservative USSC for the foreseeable future."

How about a simple question.

And it goes both ways.

Since the Supreme Court is in my understanding of the Constitution, is that it should be politically neutral. Both sides of the political spectrum play the political card. How could we find a way to take the political philosophy out of the hands of the justices and base their decisions on the Constitution alone? Not just original intent, because our perception of the world is far different than it was 240 years ago. Nor on a liberal philosophy either.

Food for thought.

Busy day, another doctors appointment, to deal with some not fun pain and mobility issues.

C.H. Truth said...

How could we find a way to take the political philosophy out of the hands of the justices and base their decisions on the Constitution alone?

Simple, Roger

Everyone takes their own personal politics out of play. We do away with "litmus tests" and questions that play into politics...

and we appoint and confirm only those Justices who base their decisions on the Constitution alone.


Then we get decisions that we can trust are based on constitutional law and not the persona politics of the Justices in question.

Commonsense said...

If they did that, there would have been no right to an abortion or gay marriage.

I don't think that's the outcome Roger would have wanted.

C.H. Truth said...

The problem is that while a vast majority of Americans want the courts to arbitrate the laws based on the constitution, precedent, and statutory laws... there are a very loud minority who demand that Justices use their own personal judgement and sense of "fairness" to make their determinations on the law.

It's the difference between reffing a football game objectively and by enforcing the rules objectively...

vs

Deciding which team you feel might be overall more deserving of a win, and then allowing your power as referee to be used to push things in that direction.


Sometimes the rules dictate that you make calls that don't necessarily help the team you might feel "should" win.

KD, Session Wins over Warren, not a fair fight said...

their decisions on the Constitution alone? " UCLA Barbie

It is really very simple, follow the US Constitution as it is today.

IF, like in the past their are rights that are not included in it, as the US Constitution Allows , Change it.

2/3 of the States ratify the change, it was made difficult to do on purpose.

rrb said...

Then we get decisions that we can trust are based on constitutional law and not the persona politics of the Justices in question.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and that has been the rub with virtually every case liberals have won before the high court. especially roe. i can recall countless interviews with scalia where he clearly stated that his major problem with roe was that it was not and is not addressed in the constitution in any way, shape, or form.

it was fabricated out of whole cloth by the whim of the court majority.

furthermore, to treat the constitution as a living document subject to the whim of whichever way the modern day wind is blowing undermines the document as the foundation of our nation.

Scalia's concept of constitutional interpretation became the focus of huge debates on the court and in the legal community. Is the Constitution a living document that adapts to the times, so that, for example, punishments once accepted could now be viewed as unconstitutionally cruel and unusual?

"The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring," he said. "It means today not what current society, much less the courts, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/140647230/justice-antonin-scalia-known-for-biting-dissents-dies-at-79


if we think we can treat the constitution as a living document that can be interpreted to support the whim of the day, then every law on the books should be reviewed as well to see if it meets the standard of "liberal feelz", whatever that happens to be at the moment.

robart defied the constitutionality of the statute as written. simply because he's a good little liberal.

if president clinton had issued this order we wouldn't even be having this conversation. that's what makes this entire situation an object lesson in liberal asshattery.

Commonsense said...

Trump Job Approval at 50.1%

Liberal heads explode all over the nation.

rrb said...


and intel is spending $7BILLION and opening up 3000 jobs in AZ.

BIGLY, BIG-LEE.

LOL.

PRO Business and Pro UNION, Trump's Winning said...

Winning is what The Donald Does.

Roger Amick said...

Judge Gorsuch told Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, that he objected to Mr. Trump’s harsh criticism of the courts, including his attack over the weekend on a Seattle district court judge who temporarily blocked his immigration order. In a Twitter posting on Saturday, the president called Judge James L. Robart, a “so-called judge” whose ruling was “ridiculous” and would be overturned.
Will Trump tweet in anger??

Roger Amick said...

It said 47.8%


Mensa?

KD, good to see HB said...

Trump Democrats, yep , they stole the election from Hillary.

Remember those pesky Reagan Democrats that voted twice for Ronald, well they came back home in 2016 and Elected Trump.

The Score was 33 to 17.

KD, Did Dems Stop Devos? said...

It is simply too painful , too unbelievable, after all Hillary had it all, the Hollywierdo's, she had the Music Industry, she Had Big Dog Bill, Ried, Polosi, Biden and Crying Chuckie Schummer, she had 1.3 Billion Dollars and she had the black cherry on top, Obama.

Yet, they all failed , not just in the greatest defeat of the Machine, but by of all people a third rate, straight talking reality tv Star and failed business man. They Failed in to retake the US Senate or the US House and lost more Governorship's.


So When the Banner On HUFFPO is this, well, you know they just can't admit the defeat of Nov. 8th, 2016.


"
House Democrats Kick Off Retreat By Insisting They Matter

“No one in America ought to think this party is in retreat.”

 02/08/2017 05:42 pm ET | Updated 2 minutes ago

KD, "Crushing Cost" of ObimboCare said...

correction, Score 30 to 20

caliphate4vr said...

Cruz explains why Bernie Sanders is a fucking idiot

KD, Trumps beats Democrats again said...

After Losing the Elections, the Recounts, the intimidation of Electorial College Electors and now the Confirmation of Devos.

When the Dems fight with ever fiber of their being and loss repeatedly to the Republicans, it is ever sweeter.


AG Session WON, Dems lost again.

Roger Amick said...

This is what your President's pick for the Supreme Court takes a far different view on the decision. Trumpism Stage Four.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at federal judges considering a challenge to his executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, as his Supreme Court nominee called Mr. Trump’s attacks on the independent judiciary “demoralizing” and “disheartening.”

Mr. Trump escalated his public feud with the courts over his immigration order, saying that he had found a federal appeals court hearing on his executive order Tuesday night “disgraceful,” and that the judges had failed to grasp concepts even “a bad high school student would understand.”

The comments were a remarkable show of disdain by a sitting president for an independent judiciary, and they came at an awkward time for Mr. Trump, just as his newly selected nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the federal appeals court in Denver, was meeting with senators on Capitol Hill in the hopes of gaining support for his confirmation.

Judge Gorsuch told Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, that he objected to Mr. Trump’s harsh criticism of the courts, including his attack over the weekend on a Seattle district court judge who temporarily blocked his immigration order. In a Twitter posting on Saturday, the president called Judge James L. Robart, a “so-called judge” whose ruling was “ridiculous” and would be overturned.

The disaster we have as our President has already attacked the judges on the ninth Circuit. Breaking news the decision will not be issued tonight.

Your President obviousl spends too much time watching television instead of reading the intelligence briefings and working with his staff on legislation.

Yet as usual, you dance in circles rather than accept the FACT that this man is uniquely unqualified to be the President of the United States, that you claim to love.

KD, Trump Wins again said...

The Court Should Reflect the wishes of the People, that is what we hear all the time from the liberals.

"In particular, the results show that 55 percent of the 2,070 respondents support both revoking federal funding to sanctuary cities and the same percentage are for the ban that locked out immigrants for seven Muslim-majority countries. In contrast, 33 percent disapproved of the sanctuary cities de-funding and 38 percent disapproved of the immigration ban."

OK. Run little crybaby liberals to your safe rooms.

KD, Dems why do you hate the Voters? said...

This point has to be made time and again.

The left is not made at Trump for winning, oh no, they are mad at US the Voters.

The Left Hates US the Voters.

Roger Amick said...

The Election of Donald Trump Is The Coming of the Apocalypse. Steve Bannon.

http://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-election-of-donald-trump-is-coming.html

Roger Amick said...

Meeting a pilgrimage of Catholics and Lutherans from Germany, Pope Francis said he does not like “the contradiction of those who want to defend Christianity in the West, and, on the other hand, are against refugees and other religions.”

“This is not something I’ve read in books, but I see in the newspapers and on television every day,” Pope Francis said.

Answering questions from young people in the group this morning, the pope said, “the sickness or, you can say the sin, that Jesus condemns most is hypocrisy,” which is precisely what is happening when someone claims to be a Christian but does not live according to the teaching of Christ.

“You cannot be a Christian without living like a Christian,” he said. “You cannot be a Christian without practicing the Beatitudes. You cannot be a Christian without doing what Jesus teaches us in Matthew 25.” This is a reference to Christ’s injunction to help the needy by such works of mercy as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and welcoming the stranger.

“It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help,” he said. “If I say I am Christian, but do these things, I’m a hypocrite.”

Asked what he thought of the Reformation, Pope Francis said the Christian community is called to continual growth and maturity, and its entire history has been marked by reform movements “small and not so small,” some of which were healthy and holy, others which went awry because of human sin.

“The greatest reformers of the church are the saints, those men and women who follow the word of God and practice it,” he told the pilgrims, most of whom came from Martin Luther’s home region of Saxony-Anhalt.

In his formal talk to the group, Pope Francis said Christians must praise God that, in the past 50 years, Catholics and Lutherans have moved “from conflict to communion. We already have traveled an important part of the road together.”

Noting that he would go to Lund, Sweden, at the end of the month to participate with Lutheran leaders in opening commemorations of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Francis said an important part of the commemoration would be a joint commitment to working together in a world “thirsting for God and his mercy.”

The world needs Christians to witness God’s mercy “through service to the poorest, the sick (and) those who have abandoned their homelands in search of a better future for themselves and their families,” he said.

“In putting ourselves at the service of the neediest,” Pope Francis said, “we will experience that we already are united; it is God’s mercy that unites us.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/pope-francis-you-cant-defend-christianity-by-being-against-refugees-and-other-religions/

Roger Amick said...

I doubt that you saw the irony of your check and balances picture. You should try and teach Donald Tweeter Trump© what that means. We have three co equal brances of government with defined powers. The Tweeter in Charge® doesn't seem to have a clue about the Constitution he swore to follow, so Help Me God.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Commonsense said...

It said 47.8%
Mensa?


Careful where you put your cursor:

February 06, 2017
1,606 RESPONDENTS
Approve 50.1%
Disapprove 47.3%
Mixed feelings 2.7%

KD, said...

Just Damn, how stupid has HB become with his hate of all things Pres. Trump.

CS, good that you knew what he was doing, he is an idiot, can't even use a interactive chart correctly.


Democrats are angry with US voters.

rrb said...

Careful where you put your cursor:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


i suspect it's lodged in his rectum, nestled up against his skull.

KD, Dems are Angry with Voters said...

We have three co equal brances" UCLA BARBIE

no we don't , we have three co-equal Branches of Government.

You idiot.

rrb said...

Yet as usual, you dance in circles rather than accept the FACT that this man is uniquely unqualified to be the President of the United States, that you claim to love.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

with the ultimate irony being that a man so uniquely and supremely and galactically unqualified for the presidency has reduced your party to a sniveling puddle of political diarrhea.

please continue roger.

all this winning is not going to get old any time soon.

KD said...

Dems lost another fight with the Republicans over the AG.

When Lynch was put up for a vote. 10 fair minded US Republican Senators voted for her.

That was when we on the right were told to be understanding and even tempered and cross the isle for the good of the Nation.

However, the Dems are still mad at the VOTERS, so they want to attempt to punish those of us that voted for change and progress with President Trump and his Cabinet.

Dems, IF you want to win, stop insulting the VOTERS.

KD, said...

your party to a sniveling puddle of political diarrhea." RRB


They need more safe rooms , more crayons, diaper pins to wear and tampons to hang from their ears.


35 % of Adults between the ages of 18-35 live at home with their Parents, unwilling to get jobs and live on their own. Legacy of Liberalism.

rrb said...

We have three co equal brances of government with defined powers.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indeed we do. so for the rational and sane among us it will continue to remain a mystery why robart embarked on such an unconstitutional fools errand.

the fact remains - if president cankles had exercised the exact same statute we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and the clowns of the 9th circus would be focused on what it does best - scaring small children at birthday parties, and piling into tiny cars instead of attempting to "rule" on such an inconsequential situation.



wphamilton said...

A muddled 9th Circuit ruling, relying on the court's "judicial discretion" for jurisdiction and in determining, with vague reasoning, that there is no "public interest" served by the travel ban. And then switching to a very restrictive and tortured Constitutional reasoning, applying a much much higher standard to the Government's case, in order to rule that the Government is "not likely to prevail" in the contest.

Since "likely to prevail" in the underlying litigation is the standard to stay an injunction, the 9th Circuit ruled that the injunction (actually a "temporary restraining order" in this case) will remain in effect.

I actually do not support Trump's executive order, because as I wrote earlier it is overly broad (as the Appeals court noted as a defect) and poorly executed (ban applies to permanent residents). Yet this ruling reads like a rationalization of a predetermined result rather than legal reasoning.

Let me be very clear, I am NOT one of those who proclaim that non-citizens are not guaranteed rights under the Constitution. Anyone IN the United States most definitely DOES have Constitutional rights, citizen, legal alien or otherwise. A Constitutional argument must be addressed, and in fact is the ONLY valid cause of action by the States. That's not the flaw in the States' case. But the 9th Circuit was little better, apparently uncritically presuming that even illegal criminals sneaking into the country enjoy ALL of the due process rights of every citizen, and explicitly declined to address whether blocking them without warning really IS a violation of due process. They simply listed these claims and said, "likely to prevail".