4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban

[FAST]

The Constitution says you cannot make a law relating to religion. It has no exemption in it for immigration laws.

And you know specifically that the constitution states,.. that laws regarding the US,... also apply to foreign states as well.

And once again you have this problem being able to understand the difference between a religion and a race, and now countries.

 

[slowandeasy]

Fuji, give up. You've been doing this for pages. The argument goes in circles. Fast and Soupy are too stubborn to agree with you and don't understand your arguments anyway. You aren't going to change that. This thread is now a waste of your time. Put them on ignore and use your time more fruitfully.

I commend you for a valiant attempt.

 

[fuji]

And you know specifically that the constitution states,.. that laws regarding the US,... also apply to foreign states as well.

In this case we are discussing a US law. Namely, Trump's executive order. It's unconstitutional for Trump to issue any order respecting religion. Including orders on which religions to issue visas to.

The case will turn on whether the SC believes the superficial reasons for the order (preventing terrorism) or whether they accept the lower court finding that this was a sham secular purpose and the real reason is to limit muslim immigration.

 

[FAST]

In this case we are discussing a US law. Namely, Trump's executive order. It's unconstitutional for Trump to issue any order respecting religion. Including orders on which religions to issue visas to.

The case will turn on whether the SC believes the superficial reasons for the order (preventing terrorism) or whether they accept the lower court finding that this was a sham secular purpose and the real reason is to limit muslim immigration.

,..."It's unconstitutional for Trump to issue any order respecting religion",...that is utter bull shit,...were do you come up with this crap,....

And once again fuji,...the law in question is regarding foreign countries,...NOT the United states.

 

[fuji]

,..."It's unconstitutional for Trump to issue any order respecting religion",...that is utter bull shit,...were do you come up with this crap,....

"This crap" is the the First Amendment. The law in question is a US law respecting the issuance of US visas by US officials. Trump's actions are clearly bound by the Constitution.

 

[FAST]

A great imagination,...

"This crap" is the the First Amendment. The law in question is a US law respecting the issuance of US visas by US officials. Trump's actions are clearly bound by the Constitution.

,.... :bounce:

 

[fuji]

,.... :bounce:

Yes I imagined the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. :doh:

 

[FAST]

Read 1st,...

Yes I imagined the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

Well your imagination is still just your imagination,...wrong,...:der:

 

[fuji]

Well your imagination is still just your imagination,...wrong,...:der:

Really.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

 

[FAST]

Really.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

I think you have just displayed,... probably your' only redeeming characteristic,...a sense of humour,...

 

[fuji]

I think you have just displayed,... probably your' only redeeming characteristic,...a sense of humour,...

So let's be clear: the Constitution forbids the government from making ANY law respecting religion or preferring one religion over another. An executive order basing visa issuance on religion is completely illegal.

The only open question is whether the order does target Muslims as the lower courts have said, or whether the targeted nations being Muslim is just incidental as Trump's lawyers claim.

 

[FAST]

So let's be clear: the Constitution forbids the government from making ANY law respecting religion or preferring one religion over another. An executive order basing visa issuance on religion is completely illegal.

The only open question is whether the order does target Muslims as the lower courts have said, or whether the targeted nations being Muslim is just incidental as Trump's lawyers claim.

In your opinion,...nothing more.

And,...some judges disagree with your "opinion",...but what the hell do they know,...right fuji,...!!!

 

[fuji]

In your opinion,...nothing more.

And,...some judges disagree with your "opinion",...but what the hell do they know,...right fuji,...!!!

No, it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the US Supreme Court that it's unconstitutional for the government to enact any laws that discriminate against any religion.

You're just losing any credibility you have left. The only way Trump wins this is if he can make a case that his order DOESN'T discriminate against Islam.

 

[FAST]

No, it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the US Supreme Court that it's unconstitutional for the government to enact any laws that discriminate against any religion.

You're just losing any credibility you have left. The only way Trump wins this is if he can make a case that his order DOESN'T discriminate against Islam.

OK,...lets bring you up to speed again fuji,...Killary lost the election to Donald fucking Trump,...the US Supreme Court has NOT yet ruled on Trumps initiative to combat terrorism,...today is June 3rd 2017,...anything else I can help you with,...???

But again,...its good to know that you know better than some US judges.

 

[fuji]

OK,...lets bring you up to speed again fuji,...Killary lost the election to Donald fucking Trump,...the US Supreme Court has NOT yet ruled on Trumps initiative to combat terrorism,...today is June 3rd 2017,...anything else I can help you with,...???

But again,...its good to know that you know better than some US judges.

The US Supreme Court has ruled numerous times on whether the government can enact laws that prefer one religion over another. The answer is definitely NO.

The only way Trump's order can survive is if the SC is persuaded that it isn't really targeting muslims as lower courts say it is.

 

[FAST]

The US Supreme Court has ruled numerous times on whether the government can enact laws that prefer one religion over another. The answer is definitely NO.

The only way Trump's order can survive is if the SC is persuaded that it isn't really targeting muslims as lower courts say it is.

So now you can predict the future,...as well a being a comedian,... your capabilities are just astounding,...

 

[SuperCharge]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg better do the right thing and recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal. As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has “said or done something” that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case. As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court’s judgment would have “any bearing upon the reputation and integrity” of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.

The general statute for recusal derives from section 455 of Title 28. There is an occasional misunderstanding that the statute does not apply to Supreme Court justices, but that is incorrect, as it was often rewritten to make it stricter and stronger in its recusal standards after prior Justices failed to recuse. A justice “shall disqualify himself” whenever “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and whenever the justice has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” What matters is not the reality of bias, but the appearance of bias. The goal of the statute is to “promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”

The travel ban case concerns the intentions of the President, as explicated in his campaign statements, according to the Fourth Circuit. (This is, of course, a completely unheard of precedent for any President; if held consistently, Obamacare was unconstitutional since the President repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail it was a mandate, not a tax, and the Supreme Court recognized if it was in fact a mandate, Obamacare’s cornerstone was illegal and unconstitutional). How can anyone not “reasonably question” whether Justice Ginsburg is partial about President Trump’s campaign intentions when she said the following about him:

•“He is a faker” in an attack on Trump CNN admitted “as if presenting a legal brief"

•“everything is up for grabs” if Trump wins, in Ginsburg denouncing Trump, to the Associated Press

•“Now it is time for us to move to New Zealand” if Trump won, to the New York Times

Can anyone looking at those statements conclude Ginsburg would not be reasonably seen as partial about Trump in a case that is all about perceiving Trump’s intentions? If Justice Ginsburg is honest to the principles she claims, she must recuse from the Trump travel ban case now before the Court.

 

[oldjones]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg better do the right thing and recuse herself from the Trump travel ban case

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal. As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has “said or done something” that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case. As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court’s judgment would have “any bearing upon the reputation and integrity” of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.

The general statute for recusal derives from section 455 of Title 28. There is an occasional misunderstanding that the statute does not apply to Supreme Court justices, but that is incorrect, as it was often rewritten to make it stricter and stronger in its recusal standards after prior Justices failed to recuse. A justice “shall disqualify himself” whenever “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and whenever the justice has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” What matters is not the reality of bias, but the appearance of bias. The goal of the statute is to “promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”

The travel ban case concerns the intentions of the President, as explicated in his campaign statements, according to the Fourth Circuit. (This is, of course, a completely unheard of precedent for any President; if held consistently, Obamacare was unconstitutional since the President repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail it was a mandate, not a tax, and the Supreme Court recognized if it was in fact a mandate, Obamacare’s cornerstone was illegal and unconstitutional). How can anyone not “reasonably question” whether Justice Ginsburg is partial

•“He is a faker” in an attack on Trump CNN admitted “as if presenting about President Trump’s campaign intentions when she said the following about him:
a legal brief”

•“everything is up for grabs” if Trump wins, in Ginsburg denouncing Trump, to the Associated Press

•“Now it is time for us to move to New Zealand” if Trump won, to the New York Times

Can anyone looking at those statements conclude Ginsburg would not be reasonably seen as partial about Trump in a case that is all about perceiving Trump’s intentions? If Justice Ginsburg is honest to the principles she claims, she must recuse from the Trump travel ban case now before the Court.

Thanks for treating us with respect and including the link to your source. I don't know how, but you mangled the highlighted passage when you excerpted it from the original. Your point, your post, you fix.

Of course we're also expecting a Gorsuch recusal, which would have the advantage of bringing the Court back to an odd-number of justices.

 

[SuperCharge]

Thanks for treating us with respect and including the link to your source. I don't know how, but you mangled the highlighted passage when you excerpted it from the original. Your point, your post, you fix.

Of course we're also expecting a Gorsuch recusal, which would have the advantage of bringing the Court back to an odd-number of justices.

And why would you be expecting Gorsuch's recusal? Don't see anyone calling for his recusal nor will they. Not for nothing, but old Ruth needs to remove herself completely and retire - she can't even keep herself awake. lol

I fixed the post but I was using paste to plain text and spacing out the paragraphs so you can all read it better and in doing that must have mixed up a sentence. Good thing I provided a link eh!

 

[oldjones]

And why would you be expecting Gorsuch removal? Don't see anyone calling for Gorsuch's recusal nor will they. Ruth needs to remove herself completely and retire - she can't even keep herself awake. lol

I fixed the post but I was using paste to plain text and spacing out the paragraphs so you can all read it better and in doing that must have mixed up a sentence. Good thing I provided a link eh!

Indeed! I already said thanks, don't fish for more.

I cannot see how anyone reasonable could imagine there wouldn't be an appearance of partiality and favouritism in such a recent and so highly politicized an appointment. No matter how impartial Gorsuch actually is, there's so way this most political of appointments can avoid whichever side he might displease from credibly claiming his decision in this most political of cases was tarnished by the perception that it may have been motivated by politics. Recusal is about keeping things looking clean, and that's how the Republican appointee can clean off the smears the Party left him with, after their self-serving, no-quarter politicking.

Unless, with Ginsberg out, he votes to make the decision a tie. But that's a possibility for Fairytale Time.