Why was this not a problem under Obama?
Quote from: Karjala takaisin on February 13, 2017, 09:38:33 AMWhy was this not a problem under Obama?I do not remember Obama screaming and bawling on Twitter over court cases regarding his Executive Orders, or his administration saying quotes like, "No one will question our Orders."And I recall whenever Obama signed an Executive Order, the right never ceased with the "POWER ABUSE!!!" nonsense, so yes. It was a "problem" under Obama.
As conspiracy tier it might sound, Trump really does seem to be putting together an autocracy. Publicly bullying people with less power for disagreeing with him. Openly trying to silence opposition. Targeting the media with unfounded smear campaigns in an attempt to discredit any negative reporting. Deliberately spreading clear lies and factually incorrect information at such a disgusting rate that people have already accepted post-truth and have stopped caring about their government pushing demonstrably false narratives. Challenging checks and balances. Undermining the authority of branches supposed to keep him in check. Personally attacking people for the sole reason of them doing their job and upholding their civil duty and the rule of law. Ignoring detestable acts by those supporting him while endlessly bringing up the wrongdoings of others. Openly praising, supporting and gaining approval from repressive regimes and factual dictatorships around the world. Filling the swamp with ever more of his cronies and people with zero qualifications for the sole reason that they are paying his party. Publicly putting blame on people who disagree with him so that he can shake off all responsibility and attack dissidents if things go sour. Leader of the free world and home of the free, my ass. I still can't believe anyone could support this pathetic excuse of a leader.
Well it's true, executive orders aren't under the purview of the judiciary.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 01:25:32 PMWell it's true, executive orders aren't under the purview of the judiciary.I think it's more so them saying the Judiciary branch is trying to be this big overreaching thing and that what they do WILL NOT be questioned. Which is fucking stupid, it will always be questioned. This isn't Russia or Turkey.
Quote from: Luciana on February 14, 2017, 01:48:02 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 01:25:32 PMWell it's true, executive orders aren't under the purview of the judiciary.I think it's more so them saying the Judiciary branch is trying to be this big overreaching thing and that what they do WILL NOT be questioned. Which is fucking stupid, it will always be questioned. This isn't Russia or Turkey.Well having a circuit court rule on the immigration executive order is overreaching. It isn't their place to do so.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 03:14:27 PMQuote from: Luciana on February 14, 2017, 01:48:02 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 01:25:32 PMWell it's true, executive orders aren't under the purview of the judiciary.I think it's more so them saying the Judiciary branch is trying to be this big overreaching thing and that what they do WILL NOT be questioned. Which is fucking stupid, it will always be questioned. This isn't Russia or Turkey.Well having a circuit court rule on the immigration executive order is overreaching. It isn't their place to do so.I'm not so sure that's true. It would be if the executive order was more clear cut and they just easily redrafted it and made it more clear, instead of just crying about it. It'd easily get passed. In its current state, it's way too damn messy. And even if it doesn't, it'll go to the Supreme Court where it'll soon be in his favor, along with the circuit courts being in his favor whom he appoints.And that doesn't invalidate the other things the dude said.
Quote from: Luciana on February 14, 2017, 03:18:38 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 03:14:27 PMQuote from: Luciana on February 14, 2017, 01:48:02 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 01:25:32 PMWell it's true, executive orders aren't under the purview of the judiciary.I think it's more so them saying the Judiciary branch is trying to be this big overreaching thing and that what they do WILL NOT be questioned. Which is fucking stupid, it will always be questioned. This isn't Russia or Turkey.Well having a circuit court rule on the immigration executive order is overreaching. It isn't their place to do so.I'm not so sure that's true. It would be if the executive order was more clear cut and they just easily redrafted it and made it more clear, instead of just crying about it. It'd easily get passed. In its current state, it's way too damn messy. And even if it doesn't, it'll go to the Supreme Court where it'll soon be in his favor, along with the circuit courts being in his favor whom he appoints.And that doesn't invalidate the other things the dude said.Which dude? But it really isn't even a question of whether it's true; the ninth circuit court has no power of judicial review over an executive order. Fuck Trump, but as ineloquently as he put it, they have no judicial authority on the matter.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 03:25:03 PMBut it really isn't even a question of whether it's true; the ninth circuit court has no power of judicial review over an executive order. Fuck Trump, but as ineloquently as he put it, they have no judicial authority on the matter.Do you have any sources on that? I'm no expert on American law because I don't think it's very interesting, but to my knowledge executive orders are definitely subject to judicial review by federal courts. And unless I'm mistaken, circuit courts of appeal are federal and fully capable of assessing the legality of executive orders or have them taken all the way up to your supreme court.Edit: did a quick search and came up with these:https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/http://www.tolerance.org/blog/executive-orders-and-checks-and-balances"Executive orders are also subject to judicial review; like laws, they can be challenged in the federal courts and ultimately go all the way to the Supreme Court."
But it really isn't even a question of whether it's true; the ninth circuit court has no power of judicial review over an executive order. Fuck Trump, but as ineloquently as he put it, they have no judicial authority on the matter.
Quote from: Flee on February 14, 2017, 05:05:43 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 03:25:03 PMBut it really isn't even a question of whether it's true; the ninth circuit court has no power of judicial review over an executive order. Fuck Trump, but as ineloquently as he put it, they have no judicial authority on the matter.Do you have any sources on that? I'm no expert on American law because I don't think it's very interesting, but to my knowledge executive orders are definitely subject to judicial review by federal courts. And unless I'm mistaken, circuit courts of appeal are federal and fully capable of assessing the legality of executive orders or have them taken all the way up to your supreme court.Edit: did a quick search and came up with these:https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/http://www.tolerance.org/blog/executive-orders-and-checks-and-balances"Executive orders are also subject to judicial review; like laws, they can be challenged in the federal courts and ultimately go all the way to the Supreme Court."Source: NPRBut in general, executive orders are reviewed by the supreme court, and ever further, courts very rarely interfere with the legislative and executive powers to manage immigration because of the separation of those branches' power.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 05:20:31 PMSource: NPRBut in general, executive orders are reviewed by the supreme court, and ever further, courts very rarely interfere with the legislative and executive powers to manage immigration because of the separation of those branches' power.You're gonna have to forgive me for not accepting that as a valid source. To my knowledge, the court hasn't ruled on the actual constitutionality of his orders yet. They've just reaffirmed that there's enough evidence to suggest that they might, which justifies the temporary restriction (not invalidation) of the order. So far, literally everything I've read confirms that there are no issues with the court ruling on this.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-how-would-the-supreme-court-react-to-1486691392-htmlstory.htmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444784/why-ninth-circuit-ruled-against-trumps-refugee-orderhttp://www.vox.com/2017/2/9/14570202/trump-judges-tweethttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0These articles discuss the case in detail and cite numerous legal experts and law professors on the topic. None of them seem to argue against this court being able to do so. I'd find extremely unlikely to assume something as fundamental as court jurisdiction would be overlooked by so many experts, lawyers and courts themselves.
Source: NPRBut in general, executive orders are reviewed by the supreme court, and ever further, courts very rarely interfere with the legislative and executive powers to manage immigration because of the separation of those branches' power.
Quote from: Flee on February 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 05:20:31 PMSource: NPRBut in general, executive orders are reviewed by the supreme court, and ever further, courts very rarely interfere with the legislative and executive powers to manage immigration because of the separation of those branches' power.You're gonna have to forgive me for not accepting that as a valid source. To my knowledge, the court hasn't ruled on the actual constitutionality of his orders yet. They've just reaffirmed that there's enough evidence to suggest that they might, which justifies the temporary restriction (not invalidation) of the order. So far, literally everything I've read confirms that there are no issues with the court ruling on this.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-how-would-the-supreme-court-react-to-1486691392-htmlstory.htmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444784/why-ninth-circuit-ruled-against-trumps-refugee-orderhttp://www.vox.com/2017/2/9/14570202/trump-judges-tweethttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0These articles discuss the case in detail and cite numerous legal experts and law professors on the topic. None of them seem to argue against this court being able to do so. I'd find extremely unlikely to assume something as fundamental as court jurisdiction would be overlooked by so many experts, lawyers and courts themselves.NPR is credible..
Quote from: Azumarill on February 14, 2017, 07:04:26 PMQuote from: Flee on February 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 14, 2017, 05:20:31 PMSource: NPRBut in general, executive orders are reviewed by the supreme court, and ever further, courts very rarely interfere with the legislative and executive powers to manage immigration because of the separation of those branches' power.You're gonna have to forgive me for not accepting that as a valid source. To my knowledge, the court hasn't ruled on the actual constitutionality of his orders yet. They've just reaffirmed that there's enough evidence to suggest that they might, which justifies the temporary restriction (not invalidation) of the order. So far, literally everything I've read confirms that there are no issues with the court ruling on this.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-how-would-the-supreme-court-react-to-1486691392-htmlstory.htmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444784/why-ninth-circuit-ruled-against-trumps-refugee-orderhttp://www.vox.com/2017/2/9/14570202/trump-judges-tweethttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0These articles discuss the case in detail and cite numerous legal experts and law professors on the topic. None of them seem to argue against this court being able to do so. I'd find extremely unlikely to assume something as fundamental as court jurisdiction would be overlooked by so many experts, lawyers and courts themselves.NPR is credible..i think he means something other than "i head it on NPR", like something we can actually take a look at and read
"The powers of the president's Executive Orders will not be questioned."
