On-Topic Trump Bans Syrian Refugees

[Benvolio]

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.

Amending the constitution is too cumbersome particularly if one party likes the courts authoritarian decree. Congress cannot legislate the abuse away if the court claims dishonestly to find it in the constitution. There is no effective limit on the power of the supreme court and well it knows it.

 

[rareboy]

Your comments illustrate that you do not, in fact, understand the checks and balances of the American system of government.

I'm going to make this point one more time.

If you want to create a thread on your grievances with the American judicial system at large, please go ahead and do that.

This thread is about the Republican White House Immigration Ban executive order and so any discussion about the judiciary should somehow relate to the topic at hand and not wander off into another one of your thread derailments.

 

[Stardreamer]

Re: Trump- See you in court. Stupid. So sad.

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.

The checks are hard to implement on purpose, that does not mean they do not exist. As another pointed out the legislature can also pass new laws to address the issues raised concerning the constitutionality of a law.

The appointment process is actually the main check one the Republicans have been undermining with their tactics of holding up appointments of Democrats. The role the courts play in our system require them to have a high degree of independence from the day to day politics of the nation. The time and effort it takes to make a major change in the makeup of the courts ensures that it is very difficult for a single President or legislature to change them. That is an INTENTIONAL safeguard.

The Amendment Process is the means to address very specific issues. It too is INTENTIONAL a very slow and difficult process meant to ensure the the will of the American people are soundly behind the change.

 

[kallipolis]

The role the courts play in our system require them to have a high degree of independence from the day to day politics of the nation. The time and effort it takes to make a major change in the makeup of the courts ensures that it is very difficult for a single President or legislature to change them. That is an INTENTIONAL safeguard.

Noteworthy....

 

[Stardreamer]

Amending the constitution is too cumbersome particularly if one party likes the courts authoritarian decree. Congress cannot legislate the abuse away if the court claims dishonestly to find it in the constitution. There is no effective limit on the power of the supreme court and well it knows it.

This 'cumbersome' property of the system is INTENTIONAL and is what the Founding Fathers intended. Yet you hold it up like it proves their intent is being subverted somehow. Problems with the courts are intended to be resolved over time. Any other approach would mean that an Imperial President might bend the courts to his will. The biggest threat to the independence of the courts at the moment is the parties delaying judicial confirmations for political reasons.

That is how the system works, something any good lawyer would understand. Most of the complaints about 'judicial activism' is really just sour grapes over not getting their way. Yes there can and will be some judges that act on their political view but the system overall is designed to minimize and balance against that. Given the timelines necessary for multiple Presidents to shift the makeup of the courts, any specific ideological leaning of the courts overall can be seen as representing the will of the People, as was the intent.

 

[Benvolio]

Noteworthy....

They clearly do not have s high degree of independence from politics. It is highly probable that the 4 democrat justices will vote to affirm the stay of the executive order and the 4 Republican justices will vote to reverse. It is very predictable.

 

[kallipolis]

They clearly do not have s high degree of independence from politics.

The justices remain human beings therefore their personal beliefs influence their determinations.

To believe otherwise would be to imagine that the justices are robots.

 

[Stardreamer]

They clearly do not have s high degree of independence from politics. It is highly probable that the 4 democrat justices will vote to affirm the stay of the executive order and the 4 Republican justices will vote to reverse. It is very predictable.

The fact that the court is so evenly balanced between the two though is evidence that the system is working as intended. During the Obama presidency you can argue that the court moved to the left ideologically, it will move to the right under the Trump Administration. That is how the system stays balanced, only by one party remaining in power over multiple presidencies, something that rarely happens, is it possible move the courts far in one direction or the other.

 

[Benvolio]

The fact that the court is so evenly balanced between the two though is evidence that the system is working as intended. During the Obama presidency you can argue that the court moved to the left ideologically, it will move to the right under the Trump Administration. That is how the system stays balanced, only by one party remaining in power over multiple presidencies, something that rarely happens, is it possible move the courts far in one direction or the other.

So now you have wisely abandoned your claim that the justices are independent of pooitics but unwisely claim that their partisanship is good. Wrong on both accounts.

 

[Stardreamer]

So now you have wisely abandoned your claim that the justices are independent of pooitics but unwisely claim that their partisanship is good. Wrong on both accounts.

I do believe I said that individual judges can and will act politically (#356), the system itself though is designed to keep the courts independent of day to day politics. It is not that any partisanship in the system is good is that the system recognizes that it exists, balances it out and neutralizes it. Of course any system made by Humans can be improved, I personally think we could use improvements in vetting the general legal knowledge and wisdom of nominees. Unfortunately the politics in the nomination process has produced a situation where we are doing less vetting for legal qualifications instead of more. It has become more important to us how our candidates stand on abortion than whether they know the constitution or not, that is harming the system.

 

[kallipolis]

Unfortunately the politics in the nomination process has produced a situation where we are doing less vetting for legal qualifications instead of more. It has become more important to us how our candidates stand on abortion than whether they know the constitution or not, that is harming the system.

I am now better informed.

 

[Benvolio]

I do believe I said that individual judges can and will act politically (#356), the system itself though is designed to keep the courts independent of day to day politics. It is not that any partisanship in the system is good is that the system recognizes that it exists, balances it out and neutralizes it. Of course any system made by Humans can be improved, I personally think we could use improvements in vetting the general legal knowledge and wisdom of nominees. Unfortunately the politics in the nomination process has produced a situation where we are doing less vetting for legal qualifications instead of more. It has become more important to us how our candidates stand on abortion than whether they know the constitution or not, that is harming the system.

the balance wii end soon, it is an accident that Kennedy is centrist. Abortion is existential for our democracy, people and culture. What is more important?

 

[rareboy]

Once again, I would ask that if people want to have a broader discussion with Benvolio that it be made into a separate thread, instead of completely derailing the thread about the Republican White House immigration ban and the legal challenges that have been brought to bear on that order.

Otherwise, I'll have to create a new thread on the Syrian refugee ban and let this one stumble off and die in the weeds.

 

[Kabluey]

...Abortion is existential for our democracy, people and culture. What is more important?

Complete nonsense.
Would you like to ban condoms, the pill, abstinence and the rhythm method too?

Because they prevent far, far more unwanted births than abortions do.
Or have you convinced yourself that only republicans abort their own?

Gee... What about those first generation Syrian American babies... Do you support immigrants' access to abortions?

 

[Stardreamer]

the balance wii end soon, it is an accident that Kennedy is centrist. Abortion is existential for our democracy, people and culture. What is more important?

OMG are you serious? Our democracy, people and culture and the basic structure of our federalist system outlined in Constitution are all more important than any one social issue even abortion. If we are going to apply litmus tests to choosing judges they should be based on Constitution 101 not single social issues.

 

[Stardreamer]

Once again, I would ask that if people want to have a broader discussion with Benvolio that it be made into a separate thread, instead of completely derailing the thread about the Republican White House immigration ban and the legal challenges that have been brought to bear on that order.

Otherwise, I'll have to create a new thread on the Syrian refugee ban and let this one stumble off and die in the weeds.

YES please! I'm not sure how to transfer all the relevant posts, is there a way a non-admin can create a split thread?

Looking back now the court derailment seems to have started from another thread being merged with this one.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

YES please! I'm not sure how to transfer all the relevant posts, is there a way a non-admin can create a split thread?

Looking back now the court derailment seems to have started from another thread being merged with this one.

I think they can but it is a lot of work, and a lot more work considering he constantly does this.

 

[gsdx]

Once again, I would ask that if people want to have a broader discussion with Benvolio that it be made into a separate thread, instead of completely derailing the thread about the Republican White House immigration ban and the legal challenges that have been brought to bear on that order.

Otherwise, I'll have to create a new thread on the Syrian refugee ban and let this one stumble off and die in the weeds.

I've reported his derailing (yet again) and asked that the thread be split. I suggest others do the same.

Something has to be done about his topic derailing. It is far-too-common.

 

[rareboy]

Another setback for TrumpCo.

The judge in the case in Virginia has ruled the executive order on immigration unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the first amendment.

Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, asserting that the campaign vow to institute a "Muslim ban" violated the First Amendment.
The Monday ruling is significant, as the judge ruled that religious bias is at the heart of Mr Trump's ban.
Another US judge has already upheld an order stopping implementation.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing laws that favour one religion over another.

"Maximum power does not mean absolute power," she wrote. "Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set" by the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38972180

 

[kallipolis]

I agree with the learned judge's reasoning.