(02-09-2017 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:47 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:40 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  This is not checks and balances. If that were true, every other circuit court would have a similar ruling on this case. I highly doubt any other circuit would have keep this ban in place. This is agenda driven liberal judges legislating from the bench. This is the 9th.

Two judges appointed by Democrats and one appointed by a Republican in a unanimous decision.

OMG these cons are such f**king morons.

Reported.

even a republican judge agreed with this. the cons have no case.

There are no republican or democratic judges. And of the two parties it's the GOP who's judges tend to me more up in the air about what kind of justice they will be.

In the end it's not a huge deal. Trumps been busy getting his picks through the senate and working on other things while everyone watched this *90* day ban get yanked by the courts.

All we can do now is hope that nobody gets in and runs a truck into a crowd of people.

(02-09-2017 07:05 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:56 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:47 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:40 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  This is not checks and balances. If that were true, every other circuit court would have a similar ruling on this case. I highly doubt any other circuit would have keep this ban in place. This is agenda driven liberal judges legislating from the bench. This is the 9th.

Two judges appointed by Democrats and one appointed by a Republican in a unanimous decision.

OMG these cons are such f**king morons.

Once again those on left are reduced to name calling and vulgarity. Hopefully the board mods will take care of this filth.

Calling another poster "filth"? Reported.

His language he used is filth. You can report that post a hundred times and it won't change what he said. Go for it.

well if the administration thinks they can win in an 8 person court, they certainly should send it up there.

(02-09-2017 07:20 PM)fsquid Wrote:  well if the administration thinks they can win in an 8 person court, they certainly should send it up there.

You keep banging that drum, but there's no guarantee there'll be 8 justices when it gets to SCOTUS.

(02-09-2017 07:18 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:47 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Two judges appointed by Democrats and one appointed by a Republican in a unanimous decision.

OMG these cons are such f**king morons.

Reported.

even a republican judge agreed with this. the cons have no case.

There are no republican or democratic judges. And of the two parties it's the GOP who's judges tend to me more up in the air about what kind of justice they will be.

In the end it's not a huge deal. Trumps been busy getting his picks through the senate and working on other things while everyone watched this *90* day ban get yanked by the courts.

All we can do now is hope that nobody gets in and runs a truck into a crowd of people.

then why did yall make such a big deal about a SCOTUS pick this election cycle.

(02-09-2017 07:23 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:20 PM)fsquid Wrote:  well if the administration thinks they can win in an 8 person court, they certainly should send it up there.

You keep banging that drum, but there's no guarantee there'll be 8 justices when it gets to SCOTUS.

there's not guarantee either way of course. But, the POTUS doesn't seem like the most patient person.

(02-09-2017 07:19 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:05 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:56 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 06:47 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Two judges appointed by Democrats and one appointed by a Republican in a unanimous decision.

OMG these cons are such f**king morons.

Once again those on left are reduced to name calling and vulgarity. Hopefully the board mods will take care of this filth.

Calling another poster "filth"? Reported.

His language he used is filth. You can report that post a hundred times and it won't change what he said. Go for it.

The guy who accused me of rooting for American soldiers to die...twice has the audacity to comment on this topic? Classic.

(02-09-2017 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  then why did yall make such a big deal about a SCOTUS pick this election cycle.

Because, as I stated, libs tend to litmus test their judges a hell of a lot more than conservatives. That does not lead to "democratic judges" it leads to liberal activist judges.

Republicans have a history of more moderate judicial nominations than the dems do, at least over the past 40 years or so.

(02-09-2017 06:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So the cons are arguing we should do away with checks and balances? You don't say? #OnePartyRule

I think you misunderstand. I don't like Trump, but he is the President and was within his legal right to impose the ban. I know liberals are celebrating tonight, but this isn't the end of this argument. This will end up in the Supreme Court. All liberals have really done is insure Gorsuch's confirmation is expedited. And, I fear the nuclear option is looking more likely. Over the course of the next two years, circuit appointments will be filled with judges less likely to legislate from the bench. Liberals can celebrate this decision if they want, but make no mistake, their judicial power is beginning to fade.

The legacy of John Marshall rears its ugly head again. Judicial activism is a cancer.

(02-09-2017 07:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  then why did yall make such a big deal about a SCOTUS pick this election cycle.

Because, as I stated, libs tend to litmus test their judges a hell of a lot more than conservatives. That does not lead to "democratic judges" it leads to liberal activist judges.

Republicans have a history of more moderate judicial nominations than the dems do, at least over the past 40 years or so.

oh FFS that is blatantly false and you know it.

Does anyone actually think this matters?

Next week, Trump'll have a rewritten order that subverts the ruling.

Why don't all you proggies just recognize that you have little or no power and for the next 8 years, you're going to only have this board to whine on. No one else cares.

You gotta admire the conviction of the left. They stick to what they think is right regardless of the safety of their fellow Americans or the damage they do to their political party.

Good luck with this philosophy in the next election

(02-09-2017 06:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is how it was written that could be not within the law. That is why we have checks and balance in place between the three areas.

Lawyers have been our end

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

LOL
Courts just put a stop to amateur hour in the White House.

(02-09-2017 08:21 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  LOL
Courts just put a stop to amateur hour in the White House.

Then Obama's 8 years were recess.

(02-09-2017 07:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  then why did yall make such a big deal about a SCOTUS pick this election cycle.

Because, as I stated, libs tend to litmus test their judges a hell of a lot more than conservatives. That does not lead to "democratic judges" it leads to liberal activist judges.

Republicans have a history of more moderate judicial nominations than the dems do, at least over the past 40 years or so.

oh FFS that is blatantly false and you know it.

(Antonin Scalia) 3/11/1936
Age: 79 yr 11 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986
- Origionalist (conservative)

Anthony Kennedy 7/23/1936
Age: 80 yr 6 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988
- Centrist

Clarence Thomas 6/23/1948
Age: 68 yr 7 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991
- Conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3/15/1933
Age: 83 yr 10 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993
- Liberal

Stephen Breyer 8/15/1938
Age: 78 yr 5 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994
- Liberal

John G. Roberts 1/27/1955
Age: 62 yr 0 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005
- Centrist (upheld Obama care and the like, his rulings lean but are not hard)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 4/1/1950
Age: 66 yr 10 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006
- Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor 6/25/1954
Age: 62 yr 7 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009
- Liberal

Elena Kagan 4/28/1960
Age: 56 yr 9 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010
- Liberal

The only "swing" votes on the court were appointed by Bush and Regan. Obama and Clinton's appointments all swing hard left.

Republicans seem less concerned with specific issues and more with philosophy. Democrats are basically asking "can you please overturn Citizens United"

(02-09-2017 09:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  then why did yall make such a big deal about a SCOTUS pick this election cycle.

Because, as I stated, libs tend to litmus test their judges a hell of a lot more than conservatives. That does not lead to "democratic judges" it leads to liberal activist judges.

Republicans have a history of more moderate judicial nominations than the dems do, at least over the past 40 years or so.

oh FFS that is blatantly false and you know it.

(Antonin Scalia) 3/11/1936
Age: 79 yr 11 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986
- Origionalist (conservative)

Anthony Kennedy 7/23/1936
Age: 80 yr 6 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988
- Centrist

Clarence Thomas 6/23/1948
Age: 68 yr 7 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991
- Conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3/15/1933
Age: 83 yr 10 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993
- Liberal

Stephen Breyer 8/15/1938
Age: 78 yr 5 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994
- Liberal

John G. Roberts 1/27/1955
Age: 62 yr 0 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005
- Centrist (upheld Obama care and the like, his rulings lean but are not hard)

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 4/1/1950
Age: 66 yr 10 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006
- Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor 6/25/1954
Age: 62 yr 7 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009
- Liberal

Elena Kagan 4/28/1960
Age: 56 yr 9 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010
- Liberal

The only "swing" votes on the court were appointed by Bush and Regan. Obama and Clinton's appointments all swing hard left.

Republicans seem less concerned with specific issues and more with philosophy. Democrats are basically asking "can you please overturn Citizens United"

That's a pretty fair assessment.

A completely accurate one would call both Kagan and Sotomayor what they are, affirmative actions cases.

Did they say what about the order made it unconstitutional or did they just do whatever they wanted like the last judge

(02-09-2017 08:00 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Does anyone actually think this matters?

Next week, Trump'll have a rewritten order that subverts the ruling.

Why don't all you proggies just recognize that you have little or no power and for the next 8 years, you're going to only have this board to whine on. No one else cares.

you got it. the art of the deal. start off asking for something you probably won't get.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app