|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted February 05, 2017 10:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:34, 05 Feb 2017.
|
Blizz said:
No conflict between judiciary, legislative, and executive is a fiction.
Conflict, as in disagreement, is one thing, but a politician knowing when to step back and say, "ok, judge, this is your turf" and a politician who will try to use populist rhetoric, legal loopholes, his appointing administrative power to force that conflict to do whatever he wants, however he wants is another thing. Every country has standards and a history of precedent, Trump won't be ordering his rivals to be shot at dawn by firing squad but he will bend your standards as backwards as he can.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 10:38 PM |
|
|
Trump strongly believes in his own image. Period. And it's not him calling the shots.
And you coming up with a used car analogy is really putting the icing on it.
We'll speak again in a couple of weeks.
@ artu
Considering that you were in the brink of entering the EU, even if you consider Turkey like something of a wild one - you never were farer away from becoming an EU member, your military is seeking asylum in other countries - and everything is working like a charm! Even the tourists are still coming.
So things went downhill real fast.
What makes you think the US would be immune? On the contrary - the US are wide open.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 10:54 PM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
No conflict between judiciary, legislative, and executive is a fiction. Judges are flesh and blood human beings and they have varying ideologies and visions of society the law/the constitution.
Corrected that for you.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 10:57 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Blizz said:
No conflict between judiciary, legislative, and executive is a fiction.
Conflict, as in disagreement, is one thing, but a politician knowing when to step back and say, "ok, judge, this is your turf" and a politician who will try to use populist rhetoric, legal loopholes, his appointing administrative power to force that conflict to do whatever he wants, however he wants is another thing. Every country has standards and a history of precedent, Trump won't be ordering his rivals to be shot at dawn by firing squad but he will bend your standards as backwards as he can.
In other words: if a federal judge makes a ruling, you're suppose to shut up and take it even if you believe that ruling is wrong, because he is a cleric judge, and his word is law no matter what.
It's pretty sad that you call the appeal process - something so utterly vital to a healthy system - a "legal loophole".
As an American citizen, I find it embarrassing that this travel ban went into effect even briefly, but I'm not going to let that alter the structure of a free society. The president- along with every single citizen - has every right to appeal a judicial ruling, and I find being opposed to such a right to be both risible and reprehensible. Trump is going to do what Trump thinks is best, just like anybody else. If he wants to legally challenge the ruling, then he can legally challenge it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 11:23 PM |
|
|
This is a lower level court. Rulings get appealed every day to higher courts. If you think there is anything unusual about Trump appealing the ruling, then you don't really know much about how the US government works.
Obama'a administration appealed rulings all the time, just like every president before him.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 11:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:36, 05 Feb 2017.
|
@JJ
Well, I wouldn't say we were at the brink of it. We were much more optimistic about it but everybody knew it was going to be a really long process and not a guaranteed one. Even about ten years ago, Merkel was talking about a "special membership" which was in some particular areas restricted.
About the military, you do realize that we just had another coup attempt and the Gulen movement's infiltration to military is not some conspiracy but very real, right? Now, is everybody who is persecuted guilty, no. Erdogan uses it as an excuse to silence even more people in some cases. But the fleeing officers are most probably part of the actual guilty ones. Also keep in mind that despite everything, all the political opposition here stood against the coup in favor of the elected government, which is a first. Because it was not about Erdogan but keeping the political arena civilian. It would have not went that way if things were as bad as "1984." The parliament just voted to take the new constitution draft to a public referendum in April and things are shifty, if it passes and it most probably will, we are switching to a system of presidency (without a prime minister) and the president will have more administrative power than ever. In that case, you can expect Turkey to be a little worse than Putin's Russia, still it won't be anything as brutal as our eastern neighbors though and certainly not some dystopian breakdown like the Hunger Games or whatever, unless the Kurdish conflict evolves into a high intensity civil war.
BB said:
In other words: if a federal judge makes a ruling, you're suppose to shut up and take it even if you believe that ruling is wrong, because he is a cleric judge, and his word is law no matter what.
I don't understand this caricaturization? Why do you think something such as the separation of powers developed over the course of parliamentary experience? To prevent abuse of power. There are ways for the Executive organs to oppose the Judiciary organs, going through Legislative organs or higher courts but it's quite a "big deal" and not your everyday political dog fight. Other than that, assuming the judges, despite having some ideological opinions like anyone of us, keep their decisions professional and act according to the law, yes, when a judge makes a ruling against an executive order that should have a ground. This is one of the biggest differences between real democracies and fake ones, the judiciary is an effective, autonomous check and balance against political corruption.
Of course, you can appeal. Trump has a legal right to appeal and no one says he can't. But the opinions of the judiciary community doesn't seem to be on his side when I look at the amount of "unconstitutional" "legal crisis" etc in related articles and he just stepped in the office. So, considering his personality and previous speeches, I'm not under the impression that acting according to the constitutional limits of his authority is a priority for him and whether he believes he is right or wrong is beside the point. You can think you are right but still genuinely respect the separation of powers or you can try to by-pass it all the time with a constant mentality of "screw those judges, what do they know." Executing an order that fits conditions of a state of emergency when there is not a valid state of emergency is kind of like text book example of how one can abuse his power, because that's what a state of emergency is, it suspends the usual balance of how individual rights versus authority of the state work, in favor of the authority of the state. So, even if Trump thinks his order is beneficial (like a rouge cop searching a murderer's home without a warrant), there is a bigger conflict of principle here.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 11:42 PM |
|
|
No. This isn't hard. President/governor/mayor/citizen believes X. Federal judge believes Y. President/governor/mayor/citizen appeals to higher court and the legal process continues.
Frankly, Trump or otherwise, I'd be quite amused by a president that just accepted a federal judge ruling automatically without continuing the process. If it was a president who I voted for, I would also be upset with them.
Anything about Trump being out of touch or stubborn or a megalomaniac is besides the point. As Cor said, the executive branch goes through appeals all the time. Courts follow a tiered system so that more imporant cases usually trickle up to higher courts, and sometimes bits and pieces of an issue can be scrapped while other parts can remain; modifications to a bill/order/plan are made.
Edit: it isn't that a judge is necessarily being openly partisan. Some bills are very long and complex and a lot of time is needed in dissecting it and determining what may or may not be kosher. An appeal might be made because of a specific hang up on a specific section. A lot of schooling and knowledge needs to be poured into being able to adeptly navigate everything, including how it can impact other laws in place. At other times, the right conclusion may simply be blurry, and these are the rulings that are inevitably heated and end up getting their own heading in college textbooks.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 05, 2017 11:52 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 12:05 AM |
|
|
There's nothing factually incorrect about the article, but it's still a bunch of what-if scenarios. My opinion is that there would be a grave political cost to defying the courts, and honestly Trump doesn't have a lot of capital to work with presently.
The US system of government is extremely complicated but it's weathered constitutional crises before. And there's not even any real indication where close to one in any case.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 08:42 AM |
|
|
I don't know how often I have to repeat this: the point to look at is not that this executive order is going through the courts, the point to look at is, that they knew it beforehand, when writing the order. There was no uncertainty about it, and if you think about it, the guys with the green cards have been approved of already, they have been allowed into the US and given the right to stay there - it's clear that those people can go to court, obviously.
Now, when you make a law, then you want it to pass. You make preparations. You know about the constitutional problems, and your advisors from Justice will tell you about them. If you consider a law important, you will want to make it watertight. In some cases you know, even if it looks watertight, it will be contested because it pisses a lot of people of.
In this case, even for a layman, there are two different problems with the law.
1) The afore-mentioned green card holders. The US have been granting them certain rights that cannot simply be revoked, at least not with fair warning, like, "green card holders from countries A-G, bring your personal things in order, because your green cards will be revoked on April 1st" or something like that.
2) Why pick those 7 countries? Why those? Why no others, more, less? What is that supposed to gain, with "bad people" full well able to gain access to identities from other countries?
Which means, the executive order isn't worth the paper it's been written on - and they KNEW IT! THAT is the actual problem here. They knew it full well, and they create havoc with this piece of crap.
And I can only repeat that this president should have been out of office already because him twittering like a schoolgirl is a disgrace of the office.
Now, think a bit further ahead. There are two options: The exec order is passed by the SC or rejected. In both cases, what happens when a terror incident takes place after that within the US?
If the order was rejected, there will be an outraged cry, since they will doubtlessly find proof that the terrorists had been coming from one of the countries in question, and under the impression of the moment and in the embarrased silence that will follow, they will get carte blanche.
If the order DID come through, they may find proof that it came from a domestic muslim group, and then you'll be in serious trouble.
So why do I paint this picture? Because the executive order is such a miserable, crappy thing. No one with good intentions, with the interests of the population in mind, would make such a crappy thing, and make it knowing that it IS crappy, indeed. It's either ill will with a very shady agenda behind it - or simple cluelessness, but that's not really a great alternative either.
EDIT: The lighter side of things
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 12:07 PM |
|
|
The decree, as much as it is stigmatizing and rushed, still is conform to Trump's program. I can't but think of, how is that any different from what Obama did when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months?
JollyJoker said:
Why pick those 7 countries? Why those? Why no others, more, less? What is that supposed to gain, with "bad people" full well able to gain access to identities from other countries?
I don't know, one thing that shocked me is 6 out of these 7 countries are forbidding Israeli citizens to cross the border, maybe it is linked but I can't say for sure.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 01:29 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
The decree, as much as it is stigmatizing and rushed, still is conform to Trump's program. I can't but think of, how is that any different from what Obama did when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months?
It is very different.
This sums things up fairly well.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 04:16 PM |
|
|
Wasn't Trump the choice of the "common people"? Didn't he flame against the establishment?
Right.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 04:33 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Wasn't Trump the choice of the "common people"? Didn't he flame against the establishment?
Right.
lol, where in the hell did you get that idea? whoever thought that trump was anti-wall street is a fool, plain and simple. the man is a PRODUCT of wall street. he has WORKED on wall street most of his life. so, of COURSE he's pro-wall street(i mean, duh?). he's the corporate side of the beast. hillary's the government side of that same beast. they're both turds, man. what gets me, is these jackasses getting all riled up with "he's not my president", when they SHOULD have been riled up and protesting with "THESE ARE NOT MY CANDIDATES". and yet, these were our candidates. what the american people had to choose from, was snowty vs. snowty. and thus, snowty became president.
the only pro about it, is that it's a NEW kind of snowty in charge(and thus, some glimmer of hope?). but the more stuff that comes out, i'm really beginning to doubt that(and that glimmer of hope dies quickly out). he seems like the same rotten snow, with only slightly different agendas. think about it: the leaders representing the government backed, and swept the rotten snow under the carpet of, government(their buddies). now, it's the corporations' turn. just like cops will sweep the rotten snow that THEIR cop-buddies do under the carpet.
like carlin said, "it's a club, and you're not in it".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 07:20 PM |
|
|
Well, it wasn't MY idea, obviously, but you can read so much about Trump being the "anti-establishment" choice, the choice of the fed-up.
Now, what I thought was, that Wall Street is a big part of the establishment - is in fact something everyone wanted to put reigns on which - somewhat - happened after the last crisis, not quite 10 years ago. Undoing that ... I mean, couldn't he flip the finger more obviously to everyone who thought Trumpf might shuffle things through a bit, ending up with slightly better cards for the COMMON people?
Times will be interesting, that's for sure.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 07:45 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 19:47, 06 Feb 2017.
|
i used to think that the government and corporations were unified in their vile ways. but after seeing the upheaval EVERYWHERE on mass media about trump(with EVERYTHING being pro-hillary), i realized that there was, indeed, a rift between the two. it seems, they both are vying for the #1 power spot in the states(if not the world). seeing that there is a split like this, gives me hope. it gives me hope because, it's not just THEM vs US. it's THEM vs THEM vs US. now that we know WHICH one controls the media(government and their agencies), we need to find which one controls the courts(most likely, government again). so, the corporations and lobbyists are second on the totem-pole, it seems(not anymore for the moment, but any possible positive changes they make SURELY remain to be seen; if at all).
what i want to know, is, WHO are the middle-"men"? is it the media? the police? the lawyers? all three? am i missing anything?
it seems, that everyone in power(be it through influence by agenda-pushing media and law, or sheer control of the populace through more physical means), is against the common "man". and they are ALL predatory.
how can a nation THIS corrupt, ever become what it was designed to be? especially if, giving the common "man" power, would almost certainly corrupt him/her?
how is it, that there can be populaces in other countries, that stand up, and are heard; but in this country, those protesting are nowhere near taken seriously? is this country THAT fascist? was it ALWAYS, by varying degrees?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 08:04 PM |
|
|
If you think I have no idea, maybe a Yale prof will make you think twice.
Look, Fred, you have to stop thinking in this categories. The US have been as doubtful a construct as every other nation, starting with warring the natives, burning witches, importinf slaves, freeing them officially, but keeping them in slavery nonetheless, supporting organized crime by idiot laws and neglecting the social side of society because in the US you could always go into some wild, unexplored territory and try to pursue your happiness.
But there is this WASP elite since 500 years or so, with its Harvard and Yale elite colleges (as in GB with Oxford and Cambridge), and there are the elite FAMILIES, like the Rothschilds and - the Bushs, and they are multinational and have ties into other countries. This is a fact - but it is also a fact that the people in the US and Europe in general have a much better life than 200 or 100 or even 50 years ago, and that includes especially minorities AND women.
As the economy is globalized, so we have to think in global patterns. We have to look at the world and accept that we have a responsibility; as good as we might succeed as a nation, if something bad happens elsewhere chances are we will be affected.
The French revolution was a pretty radical thing. Heads rolled by the thousands, the erstwhile elite was killed - and a couple of years later an goddamn EMPEROR of all things waltzed over Europe.
The Russian revolution was a bloody thing as well - I don't think so many people were happy with the result.
Or take Rome. Western Rome got smashed, resulting in a "loss" of at least 500 years of falling back into barbaric times in comparison.
What we need is EVOLUTION. INTELLIGENT evolution. Trump is the opposite.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 08:27 PM |
|
|
i'm still looking for human evolution myself. i haven't seen any in the human personality/ego for centuries. there are only a few that i've seen that lack that which dominates their better senses or good will. and they are(were) constantly at war with themselves, i suspect.
i wonder how the buddhist monks are doing. maybe if they were left alone long enough, they might develop something further along the lines of human evolution, into the right direction.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 09:28 PM |
|
|
The whole human existence is about comeing to terms with the fact that it is FINITE: life as people know it will be OVER sooner or later, and not only that, life itself may have ugly moments (or even years) of hunger, sickness and general suffering.
As a race we lead a struggle that lasts probably a couple hundred thousand years, at least, however, 10-15 thousand years. There have been victims along the way that didn't make it - for example, the Neanderthalers.
In my opinion, against pretty hasrh odds, we've come a long way. Dreary as it may look sometimes, a LOT is in reach now that our predecessors wouldn't have dared to dream of.
That is what I call evolution.
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 06, 2017 09:39 PM |
|
|
The executive isn't the top of the food chain, liberty and justice are.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
