In a case so clearly within the purview of POTUS, how is it remotely possible that they were in dissent? The politicization of the bench just disgusts me. I can’t wait until Ginsburg retires.
Question on Ginsburg and Sotomayor
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
We are both stupid women unable to interpret the law. We feel the law, not interpret it. A wise latino bigot.
Please tell me you don't expect whackos to be up to date on facts or have an intelligent conversation. That doesn't happen.
I can discuss the law with you anytime you want. We have the right to refuse admittance to this country. That's why we have borders and the President has that power. The next can change it if he so desires.
I haven’t yet, if you can find it, link it. I’ve only done a couple of basic google searches. I’d love to read their opinion.
This is not a full SCOTUS decision on the constitutional aspect of the Administration's order. This is a decision to decide whether or not the lower courts can move forward or not and with this ruling, it is saying the order can be in effect until all the appeals of the lower courts have been heard and decided. There is no dissenting opinion as this decision is not rule of a law.
So yes, this third attempt at a travel ban has been ruled to be valid and can move forward as of now. Most likely once it is all settled in the lower courts, the SCOTUS will hear another challenge and most likely it will be ruled in a similar manner.
So yes, this third attempt at a travel ban has been ruled to be valid and can move forward as of now. Most likely once it is all settled in the lower courts, the SCOTUS will hear another challenge and most likely it will be ruled in a similar manner.
They didn’t write one...they just dissented. That seems odd.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/04/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-278782
It wasn’t an actual ruling. Just the acceptance of the order to be implemented immediately. No opinion was offered in the order. I imagine it has to do with a denial of sanctuary on grounds of religious affiliation.
She absolutely deserves respect. And a lot of it. With that said, it’s time she retires.
When the only thing you have are the courts, you are losing in the court of public opinion, you are really starting to lose. Sooner or later, those guys retire or die.
I think you hit on the disingenuous nature of the objections. If it was on religious grounds, there would have been a lot more countries included on the list. They conflated campaign rhetoric with policy. The countries listed were clearly chosen for reasons unrelated to religious ideology and I’ve shown that numerous times.
I’d be ok with it, had Congress not pulled the long con to deny big O’s appointment
I agree. Although I think it flies in the face of who we are as a nation. Because it’s based on countries ability to verify backgrounds, the ban is perfectly legal— and the prerogative of POTUS. Tough for me to accept with my fancy man idealism, but legal all the same.
Hahaha, I hear you. It’s time for Thomas, Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsburg to go. Kegan, Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts are fine. Thomas is asleep at the wheel.
There was a West Wing episode (“the justices” — I think) where Bartlett appointed two young justices from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. The point was that only when we have legitimate debate on the court from innovative and strong minds can the Constitution reach its potential. That the moderate voice doesn’t push the court to the level that the founders envisioned.
TV, yes, but it was a very good episode that made a lot of sense.
The Constitution is like the bible. It is pretty straight forward. Thought shall not kill is not a suggestion. If the justices stuck to what the constitution says and not trying to make it something it isn't, we, as a country would be better off. And I know you will disagree with it but that's what I believe.
I do as well. I’m annoyed though with how political the court has become. We should never have 5-4 decisions along party lines. That’s absurd. The law is the law.
If the people hadn't been against what the Big O had been doing for the previous 7.5 years, you might have a point. If the people had really been approving of the strife that the big O had instigated within the borders of the US, Hilliary would have been elected. The people spoke.
Except that there are those who don't believe the constitution should be interpreted for what it means. It's only a suggestion.
I can respect that, and I understand that many Americans don’t see the Constitution as a “living” document. But I see the Judicial branch as an equal power in the balance of the National direction.
I agree. Lifetime appointments were created, IMO, for the explicit desire to keep politics out of the discussions on the bench. The “drain the swamp” environment that got Trump elected should be conducive to a change in the atmosphere of the court.....but it will probably just get worse. Why do we seem to always **** up the good ****?
I don’t see it as a living document. I do agree though that there are issues of morality, gay rights, race, etc. which requires a living interpretation.
I think it’s lack of rigidity is what keeps it going as a strong foundation. Privacy is a subject in which the spaces that exist in the Constitution need to be filled as well.
Without those spaces, the foundation would have cracked long ago. The problem is that the spaces need to be filled at some point. Politics play into Congress’s ability to fill the gaps most of the time. The Court can step in and help us progress
