Dial it back. This type of rhetoric is a hair shy of what I would consider racially motivated insults. It’s also unnecessarily inflammatory.
This gets an honorable mention that these kind of point and laugh type posts aren’t too far away from trolling. Please refrain.
[/moderating]
I didn’t mention the judge’s race at all, in fact I didn’t even know it when I posted my comments (I just found out now that he’s Asian). However, they weren’t meant to be racially derogatory in any way, I’m a minority myself.
I am 100% certain that John Mace isn’t saying anything of the sort. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
You don’t get this? You made the claim that Executive orders “must address an actual problem”, and you have been completely unable to provide a single cite.
Your blind support for Trump is disgraceful. The judge is doing their job as they see the law, even if they are wrong there is nothing disgraceful about it. And trying to “shame” the judiciary in this fashion is something that only a fascist would want to do. The independence of the judiciary is a crucial part of the US system and essential to democracy.
Why do you hate America?
[QUOTE=ckalli1998]
I didn’t mention the judge’s race at all, in fact I didn’t even know it when I posted my comments (I just found out now that he’s Asian). However, they weren’t meant to be racially derogatory in any way, I’m a minority myself.
[/QUOTE]
You apparently have no idea how close the hole you’re digging is getting to China. Do yourself a favor and, in all seriousness, shut the fuck up.
This is a warning for use of inappropriate language for this forum. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Really, I could’ve been warned for a series of other comments, but that was an actual, serious piece of advice. But OK, point taken.
I didn’t say he was saying anything of the sort. What I pointed out was that this is the practical result of holding the position he appears to hold.
Again, not everything is written into the Constitution. If you’d read the 9th Circuit’s and District Court judge’s rulings to which I cited you earlier in the discussion, you’d have seen where the requirement certainly was of importance to those rulings. In both instances, the judges cited case law on the “actual problem” issue as a basis for their decisions, among others. You do understand that case law is as valid as Constitutional and/or legislative law in rendering decisions and opinions, right? The case law cited in those rulings was my cite. Sorry you missed that.
You can argue that the rulings may not ultimately withstand the scrutiny of SCOTUS as it applies to the invalid nature of Trump’s orders, and you’re right about that. But if or until a final ruling is rendered by SCOTUS, it appears that the judges who have ruled to date believe – and cite the case law for their belief – that addressing an actual problem is indeed a component of the invalidity of Trump’s EOs. And unless and until SCOTUS disagrees with them, their rulings are the only guidance we have on the “actual problem” issue.
If you disagree with the case law cited by the 9th Circuit and District Court judge in support of their rulings, by all means, feel free to point out the flaws in their reasoning.
Not an Elections discussion.
FWIW, the Ohio State attacker was a Somali refugee. True, he didn’t manage to kill anybody, but 11 people were injured, and I don’t believe that non-fatal terrorist attacks are a “non-existent problem”.
[who?] [citation needed]
^Hey ckalli, you never got around to answering that.
I believe in textualism, focusing on the words and meaning of the statute’s text when interpreting its constitutionality, not intemperate campaign statements
Bollocks. You believe in whatever is convenient that suits your “side” at the time. If the situation was reversed and it was some executive action put forward by a Democratic President getting blocked because of the intent behind it you’d be cheering the Judge on.
All right. I disagree, and I do so based in no small part on intelligent design. See, it would be easy to miss the unconstitutional part of statutes that push intelligent design in schools, or which attempt to call evolution into question in school books if all we were examining were the text of the statutes. But if you look beyond that statutes themselves, it becomes blatantly obvious that what is going on is people sneaking religious doctrine into public schools.
And that’s why you agree that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, since it was based on a plain textual reading of the Fourth Amendment.
Right?
No, Roe v. Wade was based on an invented “right to privacy”, a right never suggested by the Constitution’s original public meaning when ratified; a reasonable person alive during the Constitution’s ratification would have also come to the conclusion that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, much less there being a special “right” to it. Textualism is a cousin of originalism, but there not the same thing; textualism is a philosophy used when interpreting statutes and laws passed by elected officials, while originalism is a philosophy saying that when judging something’s constitutionality you should look to the original meaning of the text of the Constitution and see whether anything in that something violates the Constitution.
Federal judge.
Of course he has no problems with ethnic cleansing. During the campaign, one of Trump’s flacks even pointed to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two as justification for a ban on Muslims.
It’s entirely possible that the judge disagrees with Trump legitimately and honestly. Trump is a human being, after all – I’m sure it’s hard for some Trump supporters to accept, but it’s possible that Trump might sometimes be wrong about something and a judge or someone else who disagrees might be right.