Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

Ginsberg Impartiality Questioned

who's talking here?

wayward1 12
jackass 1
Hiro Protagonist 1
Joe Blow 1
BuiltinTX70 9
sdanielmcev 5
Emperor of Kingwood 17
Prolix Raconteur 1
RayofHope 11
AMDG 12
them 3
fuzz81 3
urabunchcats 2
JustWatching 13

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

JustWatching --- 349 days ago -

AMDG --- 6 hours ago - quote - hide comments
Emp - could be wrong about this, but don't think the law you posted above is being challenged. I think what was challenged was that the Executive order was discriminatory. I think those 2 items are mutually exclusive.?


Maybe you should read it again. It gives the power to the President and his judgement not anyone else's judgement. Like I said, the law is on his side. 

JustWatching --- 349 days ago -

In fact lower courts have blocked trump. So tell me how some dudes opinion is more relevant than an actual court.

You mean the 9th Circuit Court that has been overturned or declared wrong 90% of the time. You go ahead and side with them. I'm going to side with my scholars. BTW...guess you never heard of shopping for the right court, have you fuzztrump. 

AMDG --- 349 days ago -

JW - you completely missed the point I was making. 

JustWatching --- 349 days ago -

Maybe I did miss your point. The SCOTUS ruled in 1950 what the President could do and the 1952 law was written, in my opinion, based on that ruling. Therefore, if all that is true then the ban should be upheld and the 9th Circuit will be reversed again. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 349 days ago -

His point was that the 9th circuits basis for blocking the EO was discrimination which they base on his campaign rhetoric. That basis is true enough but errs in a couple significant ways. Precedence in the 1950 SCOTUS ruling, and the 1952 law. But there's another important concept here. The constitution does not protect individual rights of non US citizens NOT on US soil. 

sdanielmcev --- 349 days ago -

It is not the role of the courts to uphold a statute , that is the role of the justice dept. It is the role of the court to rule on the legality of a statute.

Yes it is the duty of the courts to uphold or deny a statute. It is the duty of the Justice department to enforce, such statutes. The Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of statute 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 349 days ago -

uphold or deny a statute.

Yes, if you define "uphold" to mean deem Constitutional and "deny" to mean unconstitutional. 

AMDG --- 349 days ago -

His point was that the 9th circuits basis for blocking the EO was discrimination which they base on his campaign rhetoric. That basis is true enough but errs in a couple significant ways. Precedence in the 1950 SCOTUS ruling, and the 1952 law. But there's another important concept here. The constitution does not protect individual rights of non US citizens NOT on US soil.

thanks - exactly - and we will await their ruling 

sdanielmcev --- 349 days ago -

Yes, if you define "uphold" to mean deem Constitutional and "deny" to mean unconstitutional

You are correct, sir! 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 349 days ago -

I must say that I have enjoyed this conversation and the way its been conducted. True gentlemen. 

JustWatching --- 349 days ago -

Let's see what SCOTUS does. They will make the ultimate decision. I hope they do something before they go on their 2 month break. 

page 1 2 3
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...

politics


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground