Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

That is what Hannity claimed but that stat is incorrect. The Sixth circuit is the most often reversed with about 87 reversal rate. (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennesse circuit. Probably not the most liberal...) But note that the Supreme Court probably would not vote to take on a case simply to affirm. In a working, efficient system, most Federal Circuit cases would be either ignored by the Supreme Court or overruled unless there was a conflict between circuits.

quote:

---

The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

​

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide.

​

PolitiFact | No, the 9th Circuit isn't the 'most overturned court in the country,' as Hannity says

---

The Ninth Circuit is actually third highest.In this case, there is an equally divided Supreme Court rather than a court with a five to four political split. That 5-4 split alone is enough to explain recent differences in confirmation/overturning rates. Trump probably feels that there is no reason to press this issue until he can get his nominee appointed. Apparently, conservatives spend more time name calling than they do actual analysis.Edited by NoNukes, : Add stats

One, that is not mitigation. It is an adjudication of whether or not the claim of self- defense is viable. US law requires exactly the same adjudication, but with less deferring to defendants. (Yes there are some states with more extreme doctrines such as Stand your ground). Since what you say now does not distinguish Canadian law from the law in the US, it is clearly not what you were talking about.Mitigation, as you described it, is a lessening of culpability and punishment rather than an excusal from punishment. Justification, which is what Canada law offers, is complete excusal of criminal punishment for your actions. It does remove all criminal punishment. Maybe it does not ease your conscience.Right of self-defense - Wikipedia"Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all."Do you have anything to offer other than assertion? So far it looks like I provide facts, and you just say stuff.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not completely convinced by this argument for a few reasons.1. Much of the stuff in the order itself that ties the order to a religious test has been removed. I understand that previous rulings used other Trump statements to augment things in the order, but the strength of such arguments is going to diminish over time (or with the issuance of subsequent orders), particularly if it is clear that Trump has made changes to comply with previous rulings.2. The easy unconstitutionality arguments, namely the application to visa holders and green card holders are no long viable as the order no longer covers those folks. I note that Hawaii makes the argument that the families of citizens are still affected. Clearly, US citizens and visa holders do have constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court has previously made rulings that such rights are not fundamental, and are not sufficient to override a Congressional statute contrary to those rights.If there is a discriminatory intent, it is clear that Trump is making the attempt to limit the expression of that intent to folks who it is difficult to argue have rights under our constitution. As odious as that might sound, the Supreme Court precedent is that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act are constitutional. The Supreme Court also upheld laws that kept folks from India from becoming citizens. These rulings have never been overturned even though the US has in the past issued apologies for its treatment of Chinese.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you have anything concrete to add or is "crazeeeee" really your best contribution?

The case we are discussing will be decided in a court of law. Neither side is likely to make idiotic arguments that Islam is not a religion, so I guess both sides are engaging in "Leftist revisionism"Got anything more helpful to add?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Given that Islam is also the religion of a few million insiders, I suspect that making the arguments you recommend would result in the judge considering your representation complete idiots.And of course, your favored argument won't be presented. I've given some suggestion of what might be tried instead and a prediction that such arguments might be more successful. And all without resulting to ridiculous accusations that folks are "possibly following globalist orders to destroy the nation".Whether you like it or not, folks on the left love their country too. I served in the United States military as an officer on submarines which I suspect is more than you've ever done for this country. Yes. Why don't you pass your suggestions on to the Attorney General so he can get them out to his legal team. That way he can look like a moron in court. I understand that this thread is intended to show the wacko "liberal" response. Perhaps we had best move this thread back onto the topic, because what we seem to be discussing here are wacko, wingnut, responses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not misleading at all. There is clearly an enabling statute that gives the president the power to do ban anyone from any country from entering the US. The question is whether the Trump's EO is a constitutional application of that statute. The reasons for not allowing Chinese folks to enter were about as odious as they come, which supports the conclusion that given an enabling statute, there is no Constitutional issue. I have no idea what legislative act you think is in the way. I'm certainly not talking about the Chinese Exclusion Act.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I suspect his grasp of the law exceeds yours by quite a bit.For example, I am sure that the AG understands that it is people who have rights and not their religion, although it might be a good idea to give him a reminder that "people" includes folks of color.Here is a Justice Scalia quote for you with emphasis added by me:

quote:

---

The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islamwhich combined account for 97.7% of all believersare monotheistic. All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishablefrom publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the populationfrom Christians to Muslimsthat they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.

---

I suppose Justice Scalia was just mouthing words from his globalist overseers. AmIrite? The question of whether the constitution covers Islam as a religious belief is not one to be taken seriously.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This question is beyond idiotic.

Do you know what Due Process means?

What you have quoted is not the entirety of the law. You do not mention the much-discussed 8 U.S. Code 1182(f) which allows the president to determine that certain classes of aliens may be denied entry based on the president's own findings.

quote:

---

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks. Well noted.In any event, this provision has been used by presidents since 1965, including a usage by Jimmy Carter to revoke all Iranian visas back in 1980. Apparently, the 1965 act did not remove this particular presidential power. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Lol! Nobody "hates America" in quite the way a theocrat does.

Paul, I have to assume that this question is rhetorical.It is the stated position of Faith and marc9000 that folks accused of illegal immigration do not have any constitutional rights or any other right to resist immediate expulsion from this country. If that is your position then, of course, any assistance whatsoever including those provided by law are impediments to kicking the accused the f out of the country.The purpose of the law is to protect immigrants from shysters. That is not the government's purpose here. They are attacking some of the most proficient organizations around to prevent them from providing pro-bono assistance. Surely there is no ripoff going on here. Just a bunch of wingnuts yelling "Get out".I'm a patent attorney, but if I spoke some Spanish, I might consider taking on immigration law based solely on this travesty.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think statements like this Message 81 are close enough: Not sure what is left to say... Yeah, I get that... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.