+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,162

    Default Statements as Precedent

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.10d50de5cf7f

    I thought this was interesting.

    Not the whole "muslim ban" thing. I think we've all had enough of that in a few threads.

    I just wanted to throw out that particular slice of the court's justification as a topic. The idea that because Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, the courts find that it clearly is respecting a particular religion even though the text of the order itself is not.

    I disagree with the author. This decision seems totally reasonable to me. Even if you are actually anti-Muslim, don't you acknowledge that he's clearly accepting non-Muslims as collateral damage to enforce a Muslim ban on these countries?

    How many dumb criminal stories have we discussed over the years where someone admits on social media that they're going to do something, did something or are planning to do something? How many hot mic or hidden cam expose have we seen? This guy says over and over again he's going to do something unconstitutional, and then he does this to get it done... should that really fly? I say no.

    Before you reply, imagine this on another issue where you would disagree. What if Feinstein went around claiming she was going to ban and confiscate guns and then won the presidency? Would you expect her to be protected when she tried some legal bullshit to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns? Wouldn't her blatantly expressed intent be meaningful? Not just on the campaign but from a lifetime of being blindly, vehemently, indiscriminately, publicly anti-gun?

    This logic here really jumped out at me...
    There are sound policy reasons for ignoring campaign statements or promises to shed light on subsequent official action. For one, campaign promises are often insincere, designed to appeal to voters. Indeed, they are explicitly instrumental, and their goal is not policy outputs, but election. Moreover, implemented laws or policies are often substantially different from promises, as is the case here.
    Yeah... THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE... especially when it comes to violating the constitution.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    It doesn't matter if its anti-muslim or not the equal protection clause only applies to US citizens.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.10d50de5cf7f

    I thought this was interesting.

    Not the whole "muslim ban" thing. I think we've all had enough of that in a few threads.

    I just wanted to throw out that particular slice of the court's justification as a topic. The idea that because Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, the courts find that it clearly is respecting a particular religion even though the text of the order itself is not.

    I disagree with the author. This decision seems totally reasonable to me. Even if you are actually anti-Muslim, don't you acknowledge that he's clearly accepting non-Muslims as collateral damage to enforce a Muslim ban on these countries?

    How many dumb criminal stories have we discussed over the years where someone admits on social media that they're going to do something, did something or are planning to do something? How many hot mic or hidden cam expose have we seen? This guy says over and over again he's going to do something unconstitutional, and then he does this to get it done... should that really fly? I say no.

    Before you reply, imagine this on another issue where you would disagree. What if Feinstein went around claiming she was going to ban and confiscate guns and then won the presidency? Would you expect her to be protected when she tried some legal bullshit to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns? Wouldn't her blatantly expressed intent be meaningful? Not just on the campaign but from a lifetime of being blindly, vehemently, indiscriminately, publicly anti-gun?

    This logic here really jumped out at me...


    Yeah... THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE... especially when it comes to violating the constitution.
    If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that a statement of opinion should take precedence over an action. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are allowed a gross area of discretion to apply or cherry pick any opinion (and Trump has a near inexhaustible amount of opinions on everything) toward anything you disagree with. Trump may have stated previously that he agrees with a Muslim ban, but he also stated that he believes extreme vetting is necessary to protect America. In the case of the order, he had a clear statement of intent to have extreme vetting instituted. Would this ban some Muslims? Yes, a small portion from the world. But as you've noted, it also bans Christians from these countries. It also bans Buddhists from these countries. It also bans atheists from these countries.

    So, by your reasoning should he never be able to execute an order that disaffects anyone from a Muslim background, even if peripherally, because he had a previously adverse opinion to Muslim immigrants and/or refugees?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that a statement of opinion should take precedence over an action. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are allowed a gross area of discretion to apply or cherry pick any opinion (and Trump has a near inexhaustible amount of opinions on everything) toward anything you disagree with. Trump may have stated previously that he agrees with a Muslim ban, but he also stated that he believes extreme vetting is necessary to protect America. In the case of the order, he had a clear statement of intent to have extreme vetting instituted. Would this ban some Muslims? Yes, a small portion from the world. But as you've noted, it also bans Christians from these countries. It also bans Buddhists from these countries. It also bans atheists from these countries.

    So, by your reasoning should he never be able to execute an order that disaffects anyone from a Muslim background, even if peripherally, because he had a previously adverse opinion to Muslim immigrants and/or refugees?
    I respect what you're saying but as VK posted, ""The idea that because Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, the courts find that it clearly is respecting a particular religion even though the text of the order itself is not.""

    Whether he went through all the logistical hoops to make it so it was a legitimate 'indiscriminate' order, his words on his own actions qualify it to be 'exclusionary' or whatever words you want to call it (muslim ban).

    At the same time, I believe that candidates/representatives/elected officials/leaders/etc should be held accountable for what they promise on the campaign trail ((such as a ban on muslims)) or we will never see real 'change' in our leaders cause all they have to do is campaign on promises they will never even attempt.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    I respect what you're saying but as VK posted, ""The idea that because Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, the courts find that it clearly is respecting a particular religion even though the text of the order itself is not.""

    Whether he went through all the logistical hoops to make it so it was a legitimate 'indiscriminate' order, his words on his own actions qualify it to be 'exclusionary' or whatever words you want to call it (muslim ban).

    At the same time, I believe that candidates/representatives/elected officials/leaders/etc should be held accountable for what they promise on the campaign trail ((such as a ban on muslims)) or we will never see real 'change' in our leaders cause all they have to do is campaign on promises they will never even attempt.
    From the article: The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”

    Are you asserting that Trump directly stated that his Executive Order for increased vetting was a "Muslim ban"? Unless I am mistaken, the only time Trump has spoken of a Muslim Ban in relation to this executive order, was to defend that it was in fact not a "Muslim Ban" and rather to say that is what the media is unfairly calling it.

    Accountability for what elected officials say and do, is addressed during the voting process. As is stated in the article, it is unprecedented for a court to do something like this. Opinions, thoughts, ideas can all change. A court should not have the authority to dictate which opinion is relevant at what time, to decide legality. Again, we and we alone (US citizens) should be the sole judge of the merits of opinion.
    Last edited by Zavon; 02-10-2017 at 04:00 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,965

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Honestly I don't see how this country doesn't end up in a civil war before 4 years is up. I literally don't see how this is going to be settled peacefully. Democrats have ZERO respect for the law whatsoever and only care about freedom of speech and freedom of choice and freedom of religion when it suits one of their special interest groups.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    Honestly I don't see how this country doesn't end up in a civil war before 4 years is up. I literally don't see how this is going to be settled peacefully. Democrats have ZERO respect for the law whatsoever and only care about freedom of speech and freedom of choice and freedom of religion when it suits one of their special interest groups.
    One of the things that continually confuses me is that people think that non-citizens are somehow guaranteed protection by the constitution and/or a right to migrate here. I think a lot of SJW types don't fundamentally understand what a country *is* much less the finer points of issues like freedom of speech.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,965

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    One of the things that continually confuses me is that people think that non-citizens are somehow guaranteed protection by the constitution and/or a right to migrate here. I think a lot of SJW types don't fundamentally understand what a country *is* much less the finer points of issues like freedom of speech.
    I don't think they have the critical thinking skills needed to truly comprehend anything concerning rules, laws, survival, self preservation, anything. IMO most of the SJW/apologetic cunt waffles are the type that think mom and dad wouldn't let them play in the middle of the freeway just to be mean to them. I know it always starts some shit on the forums when I say it but I've never met a liberal I'd want to be trapped on a deserted island with. During Katrina when the rest of us were out getting food the two liberal/democrat/atheist fuktards in the group came back with Gray Goose booze so they could get drunk at the pool and purchased a fucking inflatable mattress (like for sleeping on) so they could air it up and float around on it the next day, while the rest of us came back with canned food, MREs, gas containers with much needed fuel, charcoal for grilling food, etc. The Norwegians I don't think I have to get too indept about anymore, they're fuktards, the typical libtard/eurotard ones are. The only smart ones I met that I would trust to cross the street with a stroller that my child was in were conservative, especially for the average Norwegian and shared similar values to American republican/right leaning libertarians. The liberal Norwegians were your typical idiots with no survival skills, to them walking down the streets of Syria would require not a single thought different than walking down the streets of Oslo, Norway. They don't have the self fucking preservation skills to know the difference and they don't care to learn it or accept the need for it.

    I honestly just think the world is breaking down into 2 different camps, people with self preservation skills and intellect and the MTV mindless spring break hippy type fuktards that would never survive on their own. We're seeing republicans with tradeskills and degrees in jobs that actually produce and we're seeing the liberal morons with their liberal arts degrees, their performing arts degrees, their philosophy degrees, etc protesting in the streets.

    The only hope for our country is bloodshed now while a survivable, self preserving conservative class of people still has a decent presence in this country. If America collapses, and by collapses I don't mean going apocalyptic I mean just turns into a cluster fuck of libtards like the majority of European countries, then Islam will march completely over this planet. I mean it will literally be a planet ruled by one religion that executes little girls for being raped and treats women like dogs.
    Last edited by Sillywilly; 02-10-2017 at 04:52 PM.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Well that escalated quickly.

    What I was saying was that Trump was all about banning Muslim immigration on the campaign trail. In his first 10 days on office he bans several countries immigration with heavy Muslim populations, and with very poor implementation. It could've gone down much smoother if it had been more carefully executed, that is for sure. Anyways, what vetting has been proposed? Are they talking about that yet. Just feels like more smoke and mirrors with every increasingly silly story.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    Well that escalated quickly.

    What I was saying was that Trump was all about banning Muslim immigration on the campaign trail. In his first 10 days on office he bans several countries immigration with heavy Muslim populations, and with very poor implementation. It could've gone down much smoother if it had been more carefully executed, that is for sure. Anyways, what vetting has been proposed? Are they talking about that yet. Just feels like more smoke and mirrors with every increasingly silly story.
    Just out of curiosity could you find a quote of his referring to a muslim ban. I seem to remember him calling out radical islamic terrorists as a talking point but i dont remember him ever referring it to it as a muslim ban. Not saying your wrong but I haven't seen him say it in his own words.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    Well that escalated quickly.

    What I was saying was that Trump was all about banning Muslim immigration on the campaign trail. In his first 10 days on office he bans several countries immigration with heavy Muslim populations, and with very poor implementation. It could've gone down much smoother if it had been more carefully executed, that is for sure. Anyways, what vetting has been proposed? Are they talking about that yet. Just feels like more smoke and mirrors with every increasingly silly story.
    That's because he didn't ban several Muslim countries. He instituted an executive order for the relevant agencies to review, assess, and redress the vetting process within 90 days from all travelers from all countries. In order to accommodate this monumental task, he granted a reprieve from countries that had very little or no central government or with direct ties to Terrorism (Iran), so that the agencies cited in the executive order would be able to accomplish this task. In effect people were temporarily banned from coming to the US, but not in intent. I highly recommend you read the executive order.
    Last edited by Zavon; 02-10-2017 at 07:26 PM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    That's because he didn't ban several Muslim countries. He instituted an executive order for the relevant agencies to review, assess, and redress the vetting process within 90 days from all travelers from all countries. In order to accommodate this monumental task, he granted a reprieve from countries that had very little or no central government or with direct ties to Terrorism (Iran), so that the agencies cited in the executive order would be able to accomplish this task. In effect people were temporarily banned from coming to the US, but not in intent. I highly recommend you read the executive order.
    And as I said it could/should have been executed much more smoothly. Unfortunately it did not.

    And here's DJTrumps website (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozoron View Post
    Just out of curiosity could you find a quote of his referring to a muslim ban. I seem to remember him calling out radical islamic terrorists as a talking point but i dont remember him ever referring it to it as a muslim ban. Not saying your wrong but I haven't seen him say it in his own words.
    And because it's not letting me edit my post for some reason, the link above was for you.

    Well aware its from 2015, the campaign was well underway by Dec2015 though. I even went through and looked at the data this article refers to and its pretty terrible research. Online self-report survey where they sampled 600 people. But hey, that's just me and my knowledge of statistics and bias.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    How it was executed is another topic of discussion entirely. That being said, I disagree. I think it was heavy handed by design. The intent, seems to me at least, to restore a strong measure of discretionary power back to the agencies that should be vetting. I think it was enacted the way it was to let them make the decisions while Trump took the heat for it. Sure a bunch of foreigners were inconvenienced, but the message is clear: Policy that puts America first. Anyways, don't want to divert the topic any further...
    Last edited by Zavon; 02-11-2017 at 09:33 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    The one thing that irks me is that it effected American Citizens who were traveling. Specifically dual citizenship citizens. At least that was reported. I'm sure it was barely a handful, but that has to do with the execution I would assume if the order did not effect American citizens wishing to travel to or from.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    And because it's not letting me edit my post for some reason, the link above was for you.

    Well aware its from 2015, the campaign was well underway by Dec2015 though. I even went through and looked at the data this article refers to and its pretty terrible research. Online self-report survey where they sampled 600 people. But hey, that's just me and my knowledge of statistics and bias.
    I'm confused, did you read the quote in the link you posted?

    "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."

    He states nothing about banning muslims in this quote that you linked to me, just on banning those who believe in Jihad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism

    edit: I Guess he is implying a total muslim ban reading the article. but the intent behind it is clear.
    Last edited by Ozoron; 02-11-2017 at 03:04 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozoron View Post
    I'm confused, did you read the quote in the link you posted?

    "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."

    He states nothing about banning muslims in this quote that you linked to me, just on banning those who believe in Jihad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism

    edit: I Guess he is implying a total muslim ban reading the article. but the intent behind it is clear.
    It says it literally in the words I used for the link. It doesn't use the word ban though.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Statements as Precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrrhus View Post
    It says it literally in the words I used for the link. It doesn't use the word ban though.
    That is not in trumps own words. it is the author of the article. But seeing as how the article is on https://www.donaldjtrump.com It might be safe to assume those beliefs are his own.
    Last edited by Ozoron; 02-11-2017 at 07:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts