Travel ban in effect; Supreme Court to decide

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2017, 05:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Given that the Supreme Court only reviews 0.1% of all cases heard by the Federal Court of Appeals, and far lower for just Federal District Courts, you're suggesting that we grade judges on the 1 out of 1000 of their cases that a clerk decides to forward to one of the Justices for consideration. 

Even then, an average of 70% of the cases are overturned, likely because those cases that actually get heard are controversial or partisan in nature. 

So are we going to scrutinize only those significantly above the average, maybe 90%, using a small sampling? Are we also going to suggest that having the scope of your injunction limited somehow amounts to "jumping the shark"?

First of all, I'm mad at you right now based on who I am currently defending.  While you are correct, the general consensus from the legal community was that the lower court's ruling went directly against established judicial precedent on this issue.  I've said it many times, but it's hard to claim this is a muslim ban when it doesn't cover countries that contain the vast majority of the world's muslim population.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2017, 05:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article II Section IV covers Judges too. It also states in Article III that they will hold office "during good behavior". 

OK thanks.  I thought it said that for the President but not for the judges.  Guess I could have just looked it up.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 04:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Back up what? That they don't meet the requirements as defined in the Geneva convention?

Your citation of the Convention Relating to the Rights of Refugees (not one of the Geneva Conventions) does not back up your claim. Those seeking asylum do often fit into that definition cited. They do face persecution for their religion (differences in branches of a religion can be a basis for persecution based on religion), social groups, and political opinions. So I ask again, do you have anything to back up your claim?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 05:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Given that the Supreme Court only reviews 0.1% of all cases heard by the Federal Court of Appeals, and far lower for just Federal District Courts, you're suggesting that we grade judges on the 1 out of 1000 of their cases that a clerk decides to forward to one of the Justices for consideration. 

Even then, an average of 70% of the cases are overturned, likely because those cases that actually get heard are controversial or partisan in nature. 

So are we going to scrutinize only those significantly above the average, maybe 90%, using a small sampling? Are we also going to suggest that having the scope of your injunction limited somehow amounts to "jumping the shark"?

It was pretty clear the 9th circuit was out of control. And they are most overturned. Maybe a reshuffling of the deck needs to happen. It was blatantly obvious in this case they were not actually looking at anything more than politics.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 05:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your citation of the Convention Relating to the Rights of Refugees (not one of the Geneva Conventions) does not back up your claim. Those seeking asylum do often fit into that definition cited. They do face persecution for their religion (differences in branches of a religion can be a basis for persecution based on religion), social groups, and political opinions. So I ask again, do you have anything to back up your claim?

None of these refugees are in fear of their life because of race or religion. Except the christians, of Assad goes and the Muslims take over.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 05:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: None of these refugees are in fear of their life because of race or religion. Except the christians, of Assad goes and the Muslims take over.

Did you just not read the thing you quoted, and put in bold for that matter? Race and religion are not the only qualifiers, and depending on their branch of Islam religion could very well be a qualifier for them.

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, I'm mad at you right now based on who I am currently defending.  While you are correct, the general consensus from the legal community was that the lower court's ruling went directly against established judicial precedent on this issue.  I've said it many times, but it's hard to claim this is a muslim ban when it doesn't cover countries that contain the vast majority of the world's muslim population.

That does not necessarily prevent it from being discriminatory in the nature, but I do understand the argument, and I personally feel like liberals should be happy with the decision. The bulk of the outrage was over individuals being kept out who previously were allowed in (family members, students, doctors, etc). 

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 05:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It was pretty clear the 9th circuit was out of control.  And they are most overturned.  

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/


But it's not. Scotus overturns at a 70% rate and they rank 3rd with 79%. 

Don't listen to Donny. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did you just not read the thing you quoted, and put in bold for that matter? Race and religion are not the only qualifiers, and depending on their branch of Islam religion could very well be a qualifier for them.

Your grasping at straws with branch of Islam. They are not in trouble in Syria as long as Assad stays. The only religious groups in trouble in the ME is anyone but Islam.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 07:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/


But it's not. Scotus overturns at a 70% rate and they rank 3rd with 79%. 

Don't listen to Donny. 

Using politifact to back up your claim is about as accurate as using huff po or mother Jones.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 07:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/


But it's not. Scotus overturns at a 70% rate and they rank 3rd with 79%. 

Don't listen to Donny. 

Using politifact to back up your claim is about as accurate as using huff po or mother Jones.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 08:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your grasping at straws with branch of Islam. They are not in trouble in Syria as long as Assad stays. The only religious groups in trouble in the ME is anyone but Islam.

And again you ignored the other qualifiers, like political opinion. You know, like not agreeing with the Assad regime and getting gassed, bombed or shot as a result. You are the one that put that in bold in your quote, so you must have seen it.

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 08:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Using politifact to back up your claim is about as accurate as using huff po or mother Jones.

Instead of baselessly attacking my source, you could just... supply your own to actually prove it wrong.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 09:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Instead of baselessly attacking my source, you could just... supply your own to actually prove it wrong.

He could provide evidence contrary to his point, like he did with me.

[Vlad]

 
                    

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Pretty self explanatory. Where does the confusion lie?

These lower court liberal judges who struck down Trumps executive order solely based on what Trump said during his campaign are legislating from the bench and making decisions based on their feelings, not the law.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 09:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Instead of baselessly attacking my source, you could just... supply your own to actually prove it wrong.

Why should I take this serious since you obviously are not by using politifact?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And again you ignored the other qualifiers, like political opinion. You know, like not agreeing with the Assad regime and getting gassed, bombed or shot as a result. You are the one that put that in bold in your quote, so you must have seen it.

You are grasping at straws. When you have to stretch to make them refugees they aren't refugees. Face it they are economic migrants or displaced persons. Assad runs a secular gov and you are fine if you are not plotting against him. That's a good situation in Middle East standards.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 10:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are grasping at straws. When you have to stretch to make them refugees they aren't refugees. Face it they are economic migrants or displaced persons. Assad runs a secular gov and you are fine if you are not plotting against him. That's a good situation in Middle East standards.

The post you had said political opinions were a qualifier, and that text is direct from the convention. So political opinions can make someone a refugee. Assad has murdered people indiscriminately and has murdered people that disagree with his regime. What was that nerve gas situation we sent missiles over for?

You're grasping at straws on this one. It's pretty cut and dry.

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 10:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why should I take this serious since you obviously are not by using politifact?

I could give you a link where the ABA says the same thing, but I don't think that'll change the fact that you're just going to baselessly call it a bad source and continue to not provide a shed of evidence for your falsehood. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 10:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The post you had said political opinions were a qualifier, and that text is direct from the convention. So political opinions can make someone a refugee. Assad has murdered people indiscriminately and has murdered people that disagree with his regime. What was that nerve gas situation we sent missiles over for?

You're grasping at straws on this one. It's pretty cut and dry.

You are broadening out the political opinion part. It's not for the random dude who disagrees. Almost all of these people are displaced persons or economic migrants.