Immigration Ban

#851
#851
hog88 said:
I do think Trump needs to lay off the titter and quit the calling out. It's childish and if he is right his order will stand up, that is all the calling out he needs.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
#853
#853
hog88 said:
Foreign nationals have no protection under the constitution until they are on US soil. So the judicial branch has NO dog in that hunt.
Click to expand...

Well, if what you say is true it ought to be a easy victory for Bannon an Co.

Until the scoreboard reaches zero's he ought not flick boogers on the referees.

On a side note, IANAL but for those of you that are - what would happen to Joe the Plumber in federal court if he openly questioned the legitimacy of a sitting federal judge so disrespectfully? Contempt, fine?
 
#854
#854
hog88 said:
I do think Trump needs to lay off the titter and quit the calling out. It's childish and if he is right his order will stand up, that is all the calling out he needs.
Click to expand...

Of course but I see some hyperventilating in this thread that he is doing something unique and damaging to the Union.

He's crass but every single POTUS has dissed Congress; every single one. The last one suggested Republicans were holding the country hostage.

Likewise POTI criticized the judiciary when the rulings go against them.

None of these criticisms are a threat to checks and balances.
 
#855
#855
Septic said:
Well, if what you say is true it ought to be a easy victory for Bannon an Co.

Until the scoreboard reaches zero's he ought not flick boogers on the referees.

On a side note, IANAL but for those of you that are - what would happen to Joe the Plumber in federal court if he openly questioned the legitimacy of a sitting federal judge so disrespectfully? Contempt, fine?
Click to expand...

1. This wasn't done in open court - entirely different scenario.

2. Obama calling out the SCOTUS during the SOTU address was as bad as Donny here and nothing happened to him and checks and balances were not lost.

3. Now disrespect is a big issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#857
#857
Septic said:
Well, if what you say is true it ought to be a easy victory for Bannon an Co.

Until the scoreboard reaches zero's he ought not flick boogers on the referees.

On a side note, IANAL but for those of you that are - what would happen to Joe the Plumber in federal court if he openly questioned the legitimacy of a sitting federal judge so disrespectfully? Contempt, fine?
Click to expand...

In court or through twitter?
 
#859
#859
volinbham said:
Of course but I see some hyperventilating in this thread that he is doing something unique and damaging to the Union.

He's crass but every single POTUS has dissed Congress; every single one. The last one suggested Republicans were holding the country hostage.

Likewise POTI criticized the judiciary when the rulings go against them.

None of these criticisms are a threat to checks and balances.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of surprised you don't recognize the difference between political grandstanding between the president and a bi partisan house and senate (all politicians) and blasting the individual integrity of federally appointed judge charged with apoliticaly determining law. Whatever helps you rationalize it though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#860
#860
volinbham said:
Of course but I see some hyperventilating in this thread that he is doing something unique and damaging to the Union.

He's crass but every single POTUS has dissed Congress; every single one. The last one suggested Republicans were holding the country hostage.

Likewise POTI criticized the judiciary when the rulings go against them.

None of these criticisms are a threat to checks and balances.
Click to expand...

I agree that he's not damaging the institutional fabric of our government with his tweets, in reality he's not doing much more than his predecessor. It's just the way he is doing it looks bad IMO.
 
#862
#862
ClearwaterVol said:
You certainly seem to have an opinion on this matter. Have you actually read the opinion or are you reaching your conclusions based upon second hand information?
Click to expand...

I have read the opinion and my problem is that it never explains the Court's finding of the States showing that they are "likely to succeed on the merits" or that the States have established "serious questions going to the merits of the claims."

Notably, the Court does provide its rationale the finding that the States demonstrated immediate and irreparable injury. I disagree, but at least the Court provided its rationale for this factor.
 
#863
#863
Septic said:
I'm kind of surprised you don't recognize the difference between political grandstanding between the president and a bi partisan house and senate (all politicians) and blasting the individual integrity of federally appointed judge charged with apoliticaly determining law. Whatever helps you rationalize it though...
Click to expand...

Dude, Obama did the same to the SCOTUS members sitting right in front of him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#865
#865
Septic said:
I'm kind of surprised you don't recognize the difference between political grandstanding between the president and a bi partisan house and senate (all politicians) and blasting the individual integrity of federally appointed judge charged with apoliticaly determining law. Whatever helps you rationalize it though...
Click to expand...

I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm not the one suggesting checks and balances are being threatened when the POTUS sends a mean tweet.

Again I'll say it is equivalent to calling out the SCOTUS while they are sitting quietly in front of you and cannot explain why you (the POTUS) are wrong.

Trump is crass but crass is a far cry from threatening the demise of checks and balances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#866
#866
#867
#867
Septic said:
Publicly. I'm not sure there's a distinction between the two.
Click to expand...

Huge distinction. If Joe the Plumber questioned the legitimacy of a federal judge in the courthouse during session, he's most likely visiting the jail for contempt. Joe walks out of the courthouse and calls the judge a low down piece of illegitimate dog **** on twitter, nothing. Free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#868
#868
hog88 said:
I agree that he's not damaging the institutional fabric of our government with his tweets, in reality he's not doing much more than his predecessor. It's just the way he is doing it looks bad IMO.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear - I'm not condoning his actions. I think it's childish. That said, it's not what it's being made out to be. It is a difference of style rather than substance relative to other POTI
 
#869
#869
volinbham said:
Let me be clear - I'm not condoning his actions. I think it's childish. That said, it's not what it's being made out to be. It is a difference of style rather than substance relative to other POTI
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#870
#870
hog88 said:
Huge distinction. If Joe the Plumber questioned the legitimacy of a federal judge in the courthouse during session, he's most likely visiting the jail for contempt. Joe walks out of the courthouse and calls the judge a low down piece of illegitimate dog **** on twitter, nothing. Free speech.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
#871
#871
hog88 said:
Huge distinction. If Joe the Plumber questioned the legitimacy of a federal judge in the courthouse during session, he's most likely visiting the jail for contempt. Joe walks out of the courthouse and calls the judge a low down piece of illegitimate dog **** on twitter, nothing. Free speech.
Click to expand...

Ahh, thanks.
 
#872
#872
hog88 said:
Huge distinction. If Joe the Plumber questioned the legitimacy of a federal judge in the courthouse during session, he's most likely visiting the jail for contempt. Joe walks out of the courthouse and calls the judge a low down piece of illegitimate dog **** on twitter, nothing. Free speech.
Click to expand...

As an attorney that is a right that I don't have...if I want to continue practicing.
 
#873
#873
ClearwaterVol said:
As an attorney that is a right that I don't have...if I want to continue practicing.
Click to expand...

Serious question. Is that because you would fear retaliation from the judge or is there an actual law forbidding attorneys from criticizing a judge?
 
#874
#874
hog88 said:
Serious question. Is that because you would fear retaliation from the judge or is there an actual law forbidding attorneys from criticizing a judge?
Click to expand...

The ethical rules governing the practice of law prohibit personal attacks on judiciary. I can criticize the opinion, but calling judge a piece of sh1t is way out of bounds.
 
#875
#875
ClearwaterVol said:
The ethical rules governing the practice of law prohibit personal attacks on judiciary. I can criticize the opinion, but calling judge a piece of sh1t is way out of bounds.
Click to expand...

So it's a BAR thing and not a law thing?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top