I Can See Trouble Ahead For The Tories.
Politics0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bertrum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
YMB - //So it appears one judge (from a crime ridden state) can over ride the president? //
Yes, although I fail to see what the crime stats for the judge's area have to do with the question - ?
// I can understand the Supreme Court but one judge, how is that democracy? //
It's not democracy, it's the law.
The great thing about laws is that they apply to everyone, up to and including the President, and if someone breaks the law - up to and including the President, he can be challenged, and he has - again!
// Nice lefty love in going on above I see. //
It's nothing to do with 'lefty love' - it's about obeying the law, something President Trump swore to do when he tool office.
That means upholding all the laws, not just ignoring the ones that don't fit his own hare-brained schemes.
Yes, although I fail to see what the crime stats for the judge's area have to do with the question - ?
// I can understand the Supreme Court but one judge, how is that democracy? //
It's not democracy, it's the law.
The great thing about laws is that they apply to everyone, up to and including the President, and if someone breaks the law - up to and including the President, he can be challenged, and he has - again!
// Nice lefty love in going on above I see. //
It's nothing to do with 'lefty love' - it's about obeying the law, something President Trump swore to do when he tool office.
That means upholding all the laws, not just ignoring the ones that don't fit his own hare-brained schemes.
hereIam - //Don't give up Mr President .. //
I don't think anyone would want President Trump to stop trying to deliver on his election promises.
But none of his promises were - 'I promise to hatch some ludicrous scheme to say I am stopping terrorism by preventing entire nations from entering the U.S., and I will flout the laws of this country to do it ... ' - that's what ne actually needs to stop.
I don't think anyone would want President Trump to stop trying to deliver on his election promises.
But none of his promises were - 'I promise to hatch some ludicrous scheme to say I am stopping terrorism by preventing entire nations from entering the U.S., and I will flout the laws of this country to do it ... ' - that's what ne actually needs to stop.
I disagree AH.
For one judge to be able to block it (or any other) it is wrong. That puts the Judge above the President. If it is a panel of judges in teh Supreme Court then that is right since this prevents anyone with a political grudge. i.e "questionable evidence supporting the government's national security motivation" This is entirely subjective NOT law.
I am quite surprised, due to the length of time on this one I would have thought Whitehouse legal eagles would have been over it.
For one judge to be able to block it (or any other) it is wrong. That puts the Judge above the President. If it is a panel of judges in teh Supreme Court then that is right since this prevents anyone with a political grudge. i.e "questionable evidence supporting the government's national security motivation" This is entirely subjective NOT law.
I am quite surprised, due to the length of time on this one I would have thought Whitehouse legal eagles would have been over it.
YMB - // For one judge to be able to block it (or any other) it is wrong. That puts the Judge above the President. //
In turn I disagree.
If the law can be blocked, then it can be blocked by anyone - a single judge, a committee, every judge in the country.
If the law can be blocked, and the President prevents it being blocked, that puts the President above the law, and that cannot be allowed to happen, ever - as president Nixon would confirm if he were here.
//If it is a panel of judges in teh Supreme Court then that is right since this prevents anyone with a political grudge. i.e "questionable evidence supporting the government's national security motivation" This is entirely subjective NOT law. //
If the law can be blocked, because it is the law - then it behoves a judge to do so, because to do otherwise is to go against his or her responsibilities as a judge.
I am sure that any judge observed to be blocking a law for anything other than legal reasons would be exposed, and dealt with accordingly.
In an ideal world, a judge's motives would be entirely based on the legal system, aside from any personal agenda, but none of us are naïve enough to imagine that this is how things work - but as I stated, a judge applying law which the President has flouted for similar reasons to the President - personal animosity, will soon be exposed, as indeed the President was - last time, and this time.
In turn I disagree.
If the law can be blocked, then it can be blocked by anyone - a single judge, a committee, every judge in the country.
If the law can be blocked, and the President prevents it being blocked, that puts the President above the law, and that cannot be allowed to happen, ever - as president Nixon would confirm if he were here.
//If it is a panel of judges in teh Supreme Court then that is right since this prevents anyone with a political grudge. i.e "questionable evidence supporting the government's national security motivation" This is entirely subjective NOT law. //
If the law can be blocked, because it is the law - then it behoves a judge to do so, because to do otherwise is to go against his or her responsibilities as a judge.
I am sure that any judge observed to be blocking a law for anything other than legal reasons would be exposed, and dealt with accordingly.
In an ideal world, a judge's motives would be entirely based on the legal system, aside from any personal agenda, but none of us are naïve enough to imagine that this is how things work - but as I stated, a judge applying law which the President has flouted for similar reasons to the President - personal animosity, will soon be exposed, as indeed the President was - last time, and this time.
//As the judge is an Obama appointee it wouldn't be unreasonable or a precedent to 'sack' him and replace him with someone who shares the President's vision.//
True colours showing through - so, if you're stopped from doing it, no matter how farcical, illegal or depraved it is, just remove the obstacle? Just think about that Sam.....
True colours showing through - so, if you're stopped from doing it, no matter how farcical, illegal or depraved it is, just remove the obstacle? Just think about that Sam.....
I am unsure, so only putting forward a notion here - since U.S. judges are elected officials, does the president have the power to remove them, unless he can prove that they have acted improperly?
And by the way Mr President - stopping you doing as you please does not count as 'acting improperly' - just so you know.
And by the way Mr President - stopping you doing as you please does not count as 'acting improperly' - just so you know.
The trouble is that Trump has backed himself into a corner with his pre-election pledge to "ban Moslems". It makes it very hard now for him to argue that his travel orders are not deliberately discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. And it is also highly debatable that the countries in question pose any terrorist threat over and above one that are not on there.
Presumably in any case the people who are subject to the ban have already received visas and therefore have already gone through some sort of vetting process.
Presumably in any case the people who are subject to the ban have already received visas and therefore have already gone through some sort of vetting process.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.