5 ms·

If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, you can expect to be co

by ekiru 10y ago

If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, you can expect to be consistently disappointed in the sensibility of the functioning of government in the United States. Resolving either complaint will likely require a constitutional amendment; the Establishment Clause is literally a clause in the US constitution, and the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and in deciding when a statute or regulation is contrary to the Constitution has been practiced throughout the entire history of the US since the Constitution's ratification.

graycat 10y ago
> If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, I don't, and I never so claimed. You misrepresented what I wrote to set up a false straw man in order to knock it down. Just read again what the heck I wrote. But just for you, again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, I did claim, e.g., that saying that the establishment clause on "free exercise" of a religion basically forces the US to admit a Muslim is nonsense. Or clearly the context of the US Constitution is people inside the US, mostly US citizens. That some Muslim alien in Yemen wants to immigrate is irrelevant. For judicial review, sure, but in this case 1182 is so crystal clear that supporting the TRO against the EO is nonsense. Or, 1182 says that the POTUS has essentially unlimited powers to keep US aliens out of the US. That an EO to keep out US alien Muslims in Yemen might deny a US university a speaker from Yemen, disappoint a US woman expecting to marry a man from Yemen, hurt some US burka clothing business due to fewer Muslim customers in the US are all just irrelevant; no way did the founding fathers or the authors of 1182 think of such distant side effects; issuing a TRO against such an EO is nonsense. Or the university, the woman, and the owner of the burka clothing business needed to think ahead that they were counting on US aliens outside the US being able to enter the US, and there was no such guarantee. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, if consider such obscure indirect effects, side effects, secondary, tertiary, ..., effects, then no action on anything will be possible. E.g., I could ask for a TRO to keep Trump from using Air Force One because the amount of jet fuel it burns will tend to raise the price of gasoline for me and, thus, reduce what I can buy for myself. Gee, I should file a class action with plaintiffs all over the country! Yup, that would be such an indirect effect. But such a TRO would be nonsense. I better not come up with more such examples or the 9th Circuit will be supporting such TROs. Law 1182 is just crystal clear. Making that law look complicated -- e.g., that some university may have to cancel a lecture from a speaker who can't enter the US -- is just being really mixed up between the ears. Again, the believable explanation is that those two courts out west just wanted to stick it to Trump, to show that the Judicial branch could, anytime it wanted to, so tie up Trump in legal cases that he couldn't even have a sandwich for lunch. That, from what I wrote you wrote > If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, shows that you were deliberately misreading what I wrote. Why? Basically you hate Trump and want to fight with me. I'm being clear, rational, and objective, and you are just flailing away in a political fight. Why do you hate Trump? A lot of people do. Why? The Hillary campaign spent about $1 billion and the MSM went along passing out just dirty, but unsupported and totally false, propaganda about Trump, and a lot of people believed a lot of it. The people had either to (A) believe some of the propaganda or (B) treat as sewage to be flushed nearly everything they heard from the Hillary campaign and the MSM. Case (B) required flushing so much that it was scary; so people believed (A). The Jefferson remarks show that we should accept that at times nearly everything from the MSM can be just sewage. A lot of people really swallowed that Hillary-MSM propaganda, were so convinced that after Trump won they wanted to scream, throw things, leave the US, etc. They really, really believed that propaganda. All such people have to do is just review what objections they have with Trump and, for each, find some solid evidence. At the end of that review, they will have discovered that they have essentially no evidence at all for anything significantly wrong with Trump. E.g., in this thread, on the claim that Trump is a racist, I gave the URL of the story on his efforts at Palm Beach. I got an answer back that there is plenty of evidence that Trump is racist. I asked for some such evidence, and so far I've received none. No wonder: I paid fairly close attention to the election, and I saw no such evidence at all solid. Other times on this thread I asked for evidence of something bad about Trump and didn't get any. In a sense, the TRO on the EO is really good news: If that is the strongest shots the Trump enemies can fire, then Trump must be squeaky clean.

by ekiru 10y ago

graycat 10y ago

> If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, I don't, and I never so claimed. You misrepresented what I wrote to set up a false straw man in order to knock it down. Just read again what the heck I wrote. But just for you, again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, I did claim, e.g., that saying that the establishment clause on "free exercise" of a religion basically forces the US to admit a Muslim is nonsense. Or clearly the context of the US Constitution is people inside the US, mostly US citizens. That some Muslim alien in Yemen wants to immigrate is irrelevant. For judicial review, sure, but in this case 1182 is so crystal clear that supporting the TRO against the EO is nonsense. Or, 1182 says that the POTUS has essentially unlimited powers to keep US aliens out of the US. That an EO to keep out US alien Muslims in Yemen might deny a US university a speaker from Yemen, disappoint a US woman expecting to marry a man from Yemen, hurt some US burka clothing business due to fewer Muslim customers in the US are all just irrelevant; no way did the founding fathers or the authors of 1182 think of such distant side effects; issuing a TRO against such an EO is nonsense. Or the university, the woman, and the owner of the burka clothing business needed to think ahead that they were counting on US aliens outside the US being able to enter the US, and there was no such guarantee. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, if consider such obscure indirect effects, side effects, secondary, tertiary, ..., effects, then no action on anything will be possible. E.g., I could ask for a TRO to keep Trump from using Air Force One because the amount of jet fuel it burns will tend to raise the price of gasoline for me and, thus, reduce what I can buy for myself. Gee, I should file a class action with plaintiffs all over the country! Yup, that would be such an indirect effect. But such a TRO would be nonsense. I better not come up with more such examples or the 9th Circuit will be supporting such TROs. Law 1182 is just crystal clear. Making that law look complicated -- e.g., that some university may have to cancel a lecture from a speaker who can't enter the US -- is just being really mixed up between the ears. Again, the believable explanation is that those two courts out west just wanted to stick it to Trump, to show that the Judicial branch could, anytime it wanted to, so tie up Trump in legal cases that he couldn't even have a sandwich for lunch. That, from what I wrote you wrote > If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, shows that you were deliberately misreading what I wrote. Why? Basically you hate Trump and want to fight with me. I'm being clear, rational, and objective, and you are just flailing away in a political fight. Why do you hate Trump? A lot of people do. Why? The Hillary campaign spent about $1 billion and the MSM went along passing out just dirty, but unsupported and totally false, propaganda about Trump, and a lot of people believed a lot of it. The people had either to (A) believe some of the propaganda or (B) treat as sewage to be flushed nearly everything they heard from the Hillary campaign and the MSM. Case (B) required flushing so much that it was scary; so people believed (A). The Jefferson remarks show that we should accept that at times nearly everything from the MSM can be just sewage. A lot of people really swallowed that Hillary-MSM propaganda, were so convinced that after Trump won they wanted to scream, throw things, leave the US, etc. They really, really believed that propaganda. All such people have to do is just review what objections they have with Trump and, for each, find some solid evidence. At the end of that review, they will have discovered that they have essentially no evidence at all for anything significantly wrong with Trump. E.g., in this thread, on the claim that Trump is a racist, I gave the URL of the story on his efforts at Palm Beach. I got an answer back that there is plenty of evidence that Trump is racist. I asked for some such evidence, and so far I've received none. No wonder: I paid fairly close attention to the election, and I saw no such evidence at all solid. Other times on this thread I asked for evidence of something bad about Trump and didn't get any. In a sense, the TRO on the EO is really good news: If that is the strongest shots the Trump enemies can fire, then Trump must be squeaky clean.