The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
On-Topic Trump Bans Syrian Refugees
- Thread starter rareboy
- Start date
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
What is the check or balance of the courts?
What is the check or balance of the courts?
opinterph
The other side of fear is freedom.
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
In many instances, the legislative branch can develop new law to offset (balance) unfavorable rulings from the courts.
In many instances, the legislative branch can develop new law to offset (balance) unfavorable rulings from the courts.
Stardreamer
auribus teneo lupum
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Posts
- 5,044
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
Are you asking what are the checks on the court or how the court acts as a check on the other branches?
The check on the court is the appointment process which requires the executive/legislative appointment/approval and the ability of the legislature and the states to amend the constitution.
Are you asking what are the checks on the court or how the court acts as a check on the other branches?
The check on the court is the appointment process which requires the executive/legislative appointment/approval and the ability of the legislature and the states to amend the constitution.
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
The so called checks and balences are a hoax. The supreme courts has been able to arrogate totalitarian power to itself with no effective limit. Even the confirmation of a republican will only reinstate the unpredictable Kennedy as swing vote, and there may not be another vacancy in Trumps term.
The fact is there are no effective limits on the courts. The supreme courts liberals believe in their right to change the constitution per their own political agenda; the living constitution ideology. By claiming that their legicslation is somehow in the constitution, they place it beyond the congress or states. The amendment procedure starts with congress and is too difficult to be a limit on the court. The democrats love it when the court imposes the liberal agenda by aythoritarian decree, lying about the constitution, and are able to block any attempt to limit the court. The 9th circuit decision is wrong, but the supreme court democrats will agree with the partisan politics, so the decision will probably be affirmed by default.
The so called checks and balences are a hoax. The supreme courts has been able to arrogate totalitarian power to itself with no effective limit. Even the confirmation of a republican will only reinstate the unpredictable Kennedy as swing vote, and there may not be another vacancy in Trumps term.
opinterph
The other side of fear is freedom.
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
There have been cases in which a judge is impeached and removed from office.
There have been cases in which a judge is impeached and removed from office.
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
They are impeachable for "high crimes and midemeanor" which probably does not include bad or even dishonest decisions, and the democrats will usually have the ability to block it.
They are impeachable for "high crimes and midemeanor" which probably does not include bad or even dishonest decisions, and the democrats will usually have the ability to block it.
opinterph
The other side of fear is freedom.
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
I was discussing the federal judiciary. Federal judges hold their position for life or good behavior. The president and civil officers can be impeached for treason, bribry or other high crimes and good behavior. The states may have different standards.
opinterph
The other side of fear is freedom.
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
Each jurisdiction relies on its own code of law.
Each jurisdiction relies on its own code of law.
opinterph
The other side of fear is freedom.
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
It is also where judicial independence is most important.
It is also where judicial independence is most important.
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
That is intended to mean "Independence of the courts from political parties is lacking. "
ballcaphair
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
- Posts
- 3,605
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
rareboy pointed this out on page one post #12. It is true and further debate is a fool's errand.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,192
- Reaction score
- 27,953
- Points
- 113
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
This is just such utter nonsense and only sounds like the whining of people who literally only can see everything through the lens of their own political party when a decision doesn't go their way.
While you are continually bitching and moaning about liberal activist judges...I listened to someone in the US government express their very real concerns about the conservative activist Roberts Court...where we all know that Scalia was infamous for pulling nonsense out of his ass and giving personal opinions on matters before the court that had no relevance or relationship to the Constitution.
But at the end of the day, you will see in the written decisions that the Supreme Court justices are not adrift from the Constitution...they see their role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws of the land. And there is nothing that still prevents the legislative branches of government from going back to address their decisions through legislation...although in almost every landmark case involving civil rights, legislators or the Executive branch have to be aware of the test that must be met.
Benvolio seems to function under the belief that the Courts should have no say in ruling on matters brought them. Like TrumpCo., and the matter of the Executive Order on immigration, it seems that he would argue that the case is unreviewable...that, in spite of the 1965 Immigration Act and the motivation that led to this order...that the president is somehow exempt from review...
And the crux of the immigration ban review is not that it may affect 109 or 109,000 individuals discriminately...it becomes the issue of whether the US confers absolute power on the Executive branch when the decisions made by that branch may be in contravention of the Constitution and established law and precedent.
Perhaps in discussing the powers of the tripartite branches of US government, it could be kept to the topic of this thread, namely the case of the Syrian Refugee ban...and that any general diatribe about the evils of liberals controlling the Courts could be developed as a separate thread.
This is just such utter nonsense and only sounds like the whining of people who literally only can see everything through the lens of their own political party when a decision doesn't go their way.
While you are continually bitching and moaning about liberal activist judges...I listened to someone in the US government express their very real concerns about the conservative activist Roberts Court...where we all know that Scalia was infamous for pulling nonsense out of his ass and giving personal opinions on matters before the court that had no relevance or relationship to the Constitution.
But at the end of the day, you will see in the written decisions that the Supreme Court justices are not adrift from the Constitution...they see their role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws of the land. And there is nothing that still prevents the legislative branches of government from going back to address their decisions through legislation...although in almost every landmark case involving civil rights, legislators or the Executive branch have to be aware of the test that must be met.
Benvolio seems to function under the belief that the Courts should have no say in ruling on matters brought them. Like TrumpCo., and the matter of the Executive Order on immigration, it seems that he would argue that the case is unreviewable...that, in spite of the 1965 Immigration Act and the motivation that led to this order...that the president is somehow exempt from review...
And the crux of the immigration ban review is not that it may affect 109 or 109,000 individuals discriminately...it becomes the issue of whether the US confers absolute power on the Executive branch when the decisions made by that branch may be in contravention of the Constitution and established law and precedent.
Perhaps in discussing the powers of the tripartite branches of US government, it could be kept to the topic of this thread, namely the case of the Syrian Refugee ban...and that any general diatribe about the evils of liberals controlling the Courts could be developed as a separate thread.
Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.
The real question is whether the court is the chief executive and commander in chief, rather than the president. If the court is entitled to substitute its judgement for that of the president on matters calling for discretion and judgment, we should abolish the presidency as it is an unnecessary delay in making decisions calling for action. And remember, the court regard the written constitution as inspirational only, so they will review the presidents decisions, not against an objective constitution but in the light of their own political "living" whim.
The real question is whether the court is the chief executive and commander in chief, rather than the president. If the court is entitled to substitute its judgement for that of the president on matters calling for discretion and judgment, we should abolish the presidency as it is an unnecessary delay in making decisions calling for action. And remember, the court regard the written constitution as inspirational only, so they will review the presidents decisions, not against an objective constitution but in the light of their own political "living" whim.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,192
- Reaction score
- 27,953
- Points
- 113
This doesn't even make any sense and still betrays a staggering lack of understanding of the tripartite system of checks and balances that underpin the American government.
What law school...other than the faux university, Oral Roberts U...would fail in their teaching so completely.
If the US permitted the Executive Branch to simply rule by Diktat without challenge....the Republic would be lost.
In the case of the refugee ban, there was no demonstrable urgency to restrict people from the seven countries or to impose an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. The Republican White House failed to meet this test.
There was a demonstrable prior animus on the part of the Defendant toward the faith of those included in the ban, including an admitted attempt to create a Muslim ban...even though the ban covered only those from countries, it seems, where Trump has no hotels...and the US does not have oil interests.
Obviously you know that the Supreme Court would reject the premise of un-reviewability and the principal arguments of the Defendant, so you are rushing to undercut the foundation of the ruling before it is even made....much as the Republican White House will. Much better to say that it has no judicial merit because the Supreme Court justices can't be trusted to deliver a judgement based on their knowledge of the constitution and law....because they don't understand it...than admit that maybe they see exactly through what is happening in this case.
And once again, please keep the discussion of the courts and the law germane to the issue of president Bannon's over-reaching attempt to create an imperial presidency through this immigration ban.
What law school...other than the faux university, Oral Roberts U...would fail in their teaching so completely.
If the US permitted the Executive Branch to simply rule by Diktat without challenge....the Republic would be lost.
In the case of the refugee ban, there was no demonstrable urgency to restrict people from the seven countries or to impose an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. The Republican White House failed to meet this test.
There was a demonstrable prior animus on the part of the Defendant toward the faith of those included in the ban, including an admitted attempt to create a Muslim ban...even though the ban covered only those from countries, it seems, where Trump has no hotels...and the US does not have oil interests.
Obviously you know that the Supreme Court would reject the premise of un-reviewability and the principal arguments of the Defendant, so you are rushing to undercut the foundation of the ruling before it is even made....much as the Republican White House will. Much better to say that it has no judicial merit because the Supreme Court justices can't be trusted to deliver a judgement based on their knowledge of the constitution and law....because they don't understand it...than admit that maybe they see exactly through what is happening in this case.
And once again, please keep the discussion of the courts and the law germane to the issue of president Bannon's over-reaching attempt to create an imperial presidency through this immigration ban.
What checks and balences of the court? If the court is allowed t rule by Diktat the Republic is lost.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,192
- Reaction score
- 27,953
- Points
- 113
The Legislative Branch and Executive branches are a check on the Judicial Branch.
Since you seemed to miss this in your early education, here is a very simple explanation.
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-check-balance
The Legislature, for instance, can amend the constitution or draft new laws that the judiciary may have ruled on.
In fact, the Republican White House is apparently drafting a new Executive Order to restrict immigration that they believe will circumvent any attempt by the judiciary to thwart their plan. One assumes that this time around, it is actually getting some input from actual lawyers instead of only Bannon and Miller dashing off something in the dark.
Since you seemed to miss this in your early education, here is a very simple explanation.
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-check-balance
The Legislature, for instance, can amend the constitution or draft new laws that the judiciary may have ruled on.
In fact, the Republican White House is apparently drafting a new Executive Order to restrict immigration that they believe will circumvent any attempt by the judiciary to thwart their plan. One assumes that this time around, it is actually getting some input from actual lawyers instead of only Bannon and Miller dashing off something in the dark.