Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Different courts used different reasoning.
I need to get this off my chest
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Different courts used different reasoning.
Which should tell you right there that there's no legal or constitutional reason to strike it down, otherwise that's what they'd all cite.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Well there is legal reasons. It just happens to be more than 1.
We should find out soon if SCOTUS picks this up.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Or there might be multiple reasons to strike it down. Especially since different courts used different reasoning. Nothing says each court has to cite the same reasoning. It all depends on how the case was argued in each court.
It is going to be interesting to see if using things someone said on the campaign trail holds up as a basis for supporting a judge's ruling on what should have simply been a matter of law. Talk about opening Pandora's box! No more "well, all politicians lie when they are campaigning, so take everything they say with a grain of salt" justifications.
Might be a good thing, actually.
Might be a good thing, actually.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Unless the candidate changes his/her mind upon becoming president.
steppinthrax
Active Member
They used different reasons so that there are more than one reason. Because in a legal fight it's HARDER to fight against multiple successful and legally valid reasons than the same and one only used legally valid reason. I.E. Don't put all your eggs in one basket!!!
steppinthrax
Active Member
Those brain cells might actually be firing in the correct order this time!!!! I'm impressed.
Don't care. You don't matter. ;-)
AnthonyJames
R.I.P. My Brother Rick
This_person
Well-Known Member
I know a stripper that starts all her shifts with this line.
Interesting that your 666th post is about a strippper
AnthonyJames
R.I.P. My Brother Rick
But is it the legal thing? That's what the discussion really involves. Congress has the power to change the law, the court isn't granted that power.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Yes, Congress can amend the statute with the president's signature. The courts do have the power to weigh the executive order against the current statute and either affirm it or strike it down.
Exactly. Hopefully the SC will reaffirm that fact.
Either way, I can't imagine that the issue is really even relevant any more. What few came in ..or are still coming in..have surely been subjected to some pretty rigorous vetting. Not like the days when King Putt was waving them in with his magic baton.
I'm not sure what you were looking for. The USC dosen't apply to people outside of our borders...I don't ever believe I said it did.....
You didn't say it. It was quoted in one of your replies that it was struck down under the Equal Protection Act of the 14th Amendment, or something to that effect. I cannot remember it verbatim and am not going to scroll through almost 20 pages to find it.
But, my question was, if the circuit court struck it down based on the 14th Amendment, how does that apply to people who are not in the country? Which you answered above, the USC doesn't apply to people outside our borders. So why was it being used as a basis to strike the EO down in the circuit court?
I don't disagree with them on this subject. Not at all. I'm all for a higher level of security for our country. Those courts who disagreed with Trump did not all of a sudden become liberal because of that, at least the 9th didn't. They have always leaned that way. It was no surprise that they disagreed with him.
That guy I replied to jumped in on something that he had no clue about. Not surprising from what I've seen of him.
except IIRC, the people filing the suit were already here ..... afraid to leave, assuming they would be blocked from returning
a couple of students and a professor
they'd be the last persons from the middle east I'd let in the country
That's probably it. I don't agree with it but that is probably the basis they are using.