hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
How about when they look to international law to decide US cases?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The President Trump Immigration Thread
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
How about when they look to international law to decide US cases?
Well, to be a good globalist you need to practice globalism.
Anybody know how the Amero is coming along?
Is this related to the immigration EO? If so, can you provide more information? I'm not following.
Generally, US treaties are considered binding at a near-constitutional level. So, it can be appropriate for judges to use international law sometimes.
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
Can permanent resident status be revoked? It's probably a good idea in some cases!
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
Opinio Juris » Blog Archive Justice Ginsburg on Using Foreign and International Law in Constitutional Adjudication - Opinio Juris
it was kagan's nomination hearing . I still think he should have been blocked
it was kagan's nomination hearing . I still think he should have been blocked
Oh look a protest supporting illegal immigrants! Time to set up a new border checkpoint right in the middle of that street. Legal! That would deport a lot of them.
Yes. It can be revoked by the proper authorities after due process.
So, a local prosecutor can't revoke it. But, the DOJ can, after a process where they allege and prove the activities that would cause the revocation and the accused has an opportunity to defend it.
I have no doubt that it is appropriate sometimes.
I'm also fairly confident some one INGO would not use the authority appropriately.
Ah, right.
Judges should look to every possible source to assist in understanding something - including sources that challenge any preconceived notions. These sources have different priorities or values, but I see no reason to exclude "international law" as something to consider.
hey I'm for following the law but I'm also down for using loopholes just like the bad guys doYes. It can be revoked by the proper authorities after due process.
So, a local prosecutor can't revoke it. But, the DOJ can, after a process where they allege and prove the activities that would cause the revocation and the accused has an opportunity to defend it.
I have no doubt that it is appropriate sometimes.
I'm also fairly confident some one INGO would not use the authority appropriately.
Ah, right.
Judges should look to every possible source to assist in understanding something - including sources that challenge any preconceived notions. These sources have different priorities or values, but I see no reason to exclude "international law" as something to consider.
Wonder where we can get a bet in for faster and cheaper?
Pretty much.
What checks and balances. The way it's evolved, the SCOTUS has the final say. The checks and balances are mostly in getting people appointed. But it doesn't end there as long as politicians are willing to bend the system to establish new precedences.
Checks and balances is the thing we learn in school. In the real world, it is just people fighting over the power of the stick. All three branches have a stick. And the fight is to align the stick holders with the same ideology.
You want to talk about checks and balances? How's this?
History lesson: FDR, after winning a landslide 2nd term, tried to use his majority in both houses to get Congress to let him appoint a new justice for every justice over 70 on the SCOTUS and federal appeals posts. He claimed that there weren't enough judges to handle the load, and also claimed that infirm judges over 70 were a burden on the legal system. Um, ya. Right. He was actually pissed because the SCOTUS was overturning his New Deal ****. The pinnacle of the New Deal, Social Security, was yet to be decided by the SCOTUS. So FDR wanted to pack the courts with people who would rubber stamp his ****.
Congress was privately widely against the idea, but would have voted for it anyway because, it's ****ing FDR after all! But then a young SCOTUS justice named Roberts started swinging the other way, ruling in favor of New Deal laws. So the court flipped it's 5-4 rulings against the new deal, to 5-4 in favor. This caused congress to be less supportive of FDR's court stacking proposal, and it didn't happen.
It's strikingly similar to the surprising Obamacare ruling by another justice Roberts on the bench. Checks and balances my ass.
4-4 SCOTUS tie goes in favor of the 9th ruling. This **** is about politics and ideology now. I don't see any of the 4 liberal SCOTUS justices overturning this.
No. Trump's not some super genius playing 4-D chess. He's just a guy trying to get his policies implemented and reacting to this like he reacts to everything. There is no way Trump could ban ALL immigration for 90 days. He does not have the political capital for that. I'd -10 him if he tried that.
On the first part, I completely agree. In fact, if Trump rewrote the EO to fix all the issues with it, I'd +5 him for doing the right thing rather than doing his usual ego-reactive schtick.
On the second part, read the stuff I just wrote on FDR. I do not favor using tricks to make justices rubber stamps. Now that they've been duly appointed, they're there. The way the game is played, you get your candidates elected so they can appoint the kinds of judges that rule your way.
It's a crappy game but that's how it's played. If we give YOUR guy the power to just remove justices who don't agree with him, you're also giving the other side that power when the pendulum swings back their way.
Of course there's a cure for it but no one wants to do it. American politics is just a game to fight over who gets to wield the big stick of government to beat up the people who disagrees with them. An abrupt halt to this game would happen if we just took the stick away.
Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Looks like his knee-jerk "SEE YOU IN COURT" tweet was followed with some advisement.
Looks like his knee-jerk "SEE YOU IN COURT" tweet was followed with some advisement.
