Attorney General orders Justice Department to not defend Muslim Ban Executive Order

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, clearly the problem here is that he told everyone how trump set up the ban. If he hadn't blabbed you & the other shills would've had no straws to grab.

FTFY

 

[fskimospy]

FTFY

Judges all over the country are issuing various injunctions against it so those must be some mighty big straws.

I think we can both agree that it's nice to see this going down in flames, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Judges all over the country are issuing various injunctions against it so those must be some mighty big straws.

I think we can both agree that it's nice to see this going down in flames, right?

It was a misguided and poorly implemented EO, but I suspect as usual with Trump, it was always meant to be a distraction.

I am starting to think Trump is a fan of Churchill's strategy of battles on the periphery. Cause the opposition to overextend their lines fighting on multiple fronts, with the expectation that you will lose on some of them.

 

[fskimospy]

It was a misguided and poorly implemented EO, but I suspect as usual with Trump, it was always meant to be a distraction.

I am starting to think Trump is a fan of Churchill's strategy of battles on the periphery. Cause the opposition to overextend their lines fighting on multiple fronts, with the expectation that you will lose on some of them.

It serving as a distraction would imply he's using this time to slip something else past people, but I see no evidence of this.

Instead of him playing twelve dimensional chess isn't it more likely that he's just lazy and incompetent?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Chaos as a strategy. It seems to be working.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It serving as a distraction would imply he's using this time to slip something else past people, but I see no evidence of this.

Instead of him playing twelve dimensional chess isn't it more likely that he's just lazy and incompetent?

Yes, we've already established he is a lazy fascist and a poo poo head. I just looked up the latest judge rulings. Andre Birotte Jr of California, another Obama appointee.

While three federal judges does add some weight behind your assertions, as you previously stated, Presidents appoint judges reflective of their interpretation of law. Three Obama appointees ruling against Trump has an undeniable political element to it, kind of like how conservatives seek home field advantage by bringing cases in front of right leaning judges.

I will have renewed faith in the system if a non-Obama appointee rules against Trump. Also the rulings to date only apply to those already holding valid visas. It seems refugees and asylum seekers are SOL, and I expect these ruling will have little applicability to the issuing of new visas from the nations stated in the EO.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, we've already established he is a lazy fascist and a poo poo head. I just looked up the latest judge rulings. Andre Birotte Jr of California, another Obama appointee.

While three federal judges does add some weight behind your assertions, as you previously stated, Presidents appoint judges reflective of their interpretation of law. Three Obama appointees ruling against Trump has an undeniable political element to it, kind of like how conservatives seek home field advantage by bringing cases in front of right leaning judges.

I will have renewed faith in the system if a non-Obama appointee rules against Trump. Also the rulings to date only apply to those already holding valid visas. It seems refugees and asylum seekers are SOL, and I expect these ruling will have little applicability to the issuing of new visas from the nations stated in the EO.

Did you check if they're hispanic, too?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Did you check if they're hispanic, too?

No. That only matters to you.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, we've already established he is a lazy fascist and a poo poo head. I just looked up the latest judge rulings. Andre Birotte Jr of California, another Obama appointee.

While three federal judges does add some weight behind your assertions, as you previously stated, Presidents appoint judges reflective of their interpretation of law. Three Obama appointees ruling against Trump has an undeniable political element to it, kind of like how conservatives seek home field advantage by bringing cases in front of right leaning judges.

I will have renewed faith in the system if a non-Obama appointee rules against Trump. Also the rulings to date only apply to those already holding valid visas. It seems refugees and asylum seekers are SOL, and I expect these ruling will have little applicability to the issuing of new visas from the nations stated in the EO.

Instead of trying to undermine the judiciary further, why not address my post? If this is a distraction then what is it a distraction from?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Instead of trying to undermine the judiciary further, why not address my post? If this is a distraction then what is it a distraction from?

Pointing out the fact that Obama appointed judges are the ones opposing Trump doesn't undermine the judiciary. Only the judiciary can undermine itself, and only if it puts party before country.

What is Trump distracting from? Who knows. What I do know is that he is incredibly effective at creating so much noise that our attention deficit society cannot sustain focus on where to attack him.

Look at how the right took down Clinton. Sustained pressure on one or two issues that called into question her judgment and ethics.

Contrast that with Trump. He is a misogynist, racist, xenophobic member of some global conspiracy of oligarchs, and oh by the way he is also a puppet of Putin. That is too broad of a target. Pick one issue and bury him with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Pointing out the fact that Obama appointed judges are the ones opposing Trump doesn't undermine the judiciary. Only the judiciary can undermine itself, and only if it puts party before country.

Untrue, people baselessly saying that rulings are less legitimate because they came from an Obama appointee undermines the judiciary.

It's incredibly irresponsible and you should stop.

What is Trump distracting from? Who knows. What I do know is that he is incredibly effective at creating so much noise that our attention deficit society cannot sustain focus on where to attack him.

Look at how the right took down Clinton. Sustained pressure on one or two issues that called into question her judgment and ethics.

Contrast that with Trump. He is a misogynist, racist, xenophobic member of some global conspiracy of oligarchs, and oh by the way he is also a puppet of Putin. That is too broad of a target. Pick one issue and bury him with it.

So your answer is nothing? This is not a very good argument.

 

[PokerGuy]

lol , so shocking that multiple obummer appointees would try to torpedo legitimate eo's. Lets see an actual impartial court look at the issue and then draw conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

lol , so shocking that multiple obummer appointees would try to torpedo legitimate eo's. Lets see an actual impartial court look at the issue and then draw conclusions.

Can you define what an 'actual impartial court' would be? Be specific.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Untrue, people baselessly saying that rulings are less legitimate because they came from an Obama appointee undermines the judiciary.

It's incredibly irresponsible and you should stop.

So your answer is nothing? This is not a very good argument.

It is not an argument, it is an opinion, and mine is no better or worst than yours.

If my meager opinion is capable of undermining the judiciary, we have bigger problems as a nation. It is not my fault that you don't care for the facts as presented.

 

[PokerGuy]

Can you define what an 'actual impartial court' would be? Be specific.

Sadly, I'm not sure that even exists in today's climate. In most cases you can pretty much tell exactly what the court rulings are going to be simply by knowing party affiliation of the judge(s). I'd like to see a ruling by a court with a mix of judges appointed by different presidents. If the ruling breaks down exactly by party line then you know it's simply a political issue and not a legal one. If not, then it might be an actual legal ruling.

 

[ivwshane]

lol , so shocking that multiple obummer appointees would try to torpedo legitimate eo's. Lets see an actual impartial court look at the issue and then draw conclusions.

Just a heads up Starbuck, you sound just like this idiot. Is that what you were going for?

 

[fskimospy]

Sadly, I'm not sure that even exists in today's climate. In most cases you can pretty much tell exactly what the court rulings are going to be simply by knowing party affiliation of the judge(s). I'd like to see a ruling by a court with a mix of judges appointed by different presidents. If the ruling breaks down exactly by party line then you know it's simply a political issue and not a legal one. If not, then it might be an actual legal ruling.

lol. 'I'll wait to hear a ruling from an impartial court that I'm not sure exists'.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[Brainonska511]

Can you define what an 'actual impartial court' would be? Be specific.

One that rules in favor of PokerGuy's ideas all the time.

 

[fskimospy]

It is not an argument, it is an opinion, and mine is no better or worst than yours.

The idea that all opinions are equally valid is a really dangerous one and it's definitely not true. Opinions are either better supported or more poorly supported and this directly relates to how credible they are. When you say that Trump's actions here are meant to distract us from something that we would presumably be paying more attention to otherwise and then can't even identify what that would be that strongly indicates your opinion is a poor one.

If my meager opinion is capable of undermining the judiciary, we have bigger problems as a nation. It is not my fault that you don't care for the facts as presented.

The judiciary relies almost entirely on the public's perception that it is a fair arbiter of disputes so yes, opinions are absolutely able to undermine the judiciary.

 

[PokerGuy]

One that rules in favor of PokerGuy's ideas all the time.

Nope, plenty of legitimate courts come up with plenty of rulings I don't like. Nothing wrong with that. Pretending the political affiliation of judges doesn't play any role is just patently stupid. As I said, you can most often tell what a ruling is going to be on a lot of issues simply based on the political affiliation of the judge(s). If that's true, politics plays a major role rather than just the legal case.

 

[PokerGuy]

The idea that all opinions are equally valid is a really dangerous one and it's definitely not true.

Of course of course, we know, only leftist ideas and opinions are valid. Got it. No need to elaborate

 

[jmagg]

resist.
be in the club. no rational thought allowed.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, plenty of legitimate courts come up with plenty of rulings I don't like. Nothing wrong with that. Pretending the political affiliation of judges doesn't play any role is just patently stupid. As I said, you can most often tell what a ruling is going to be on a lot of issues simply based on the political affiliation of the judge(s). If that's true, politics plays a major role rather than just the legal case.

So wait, one post ago you weren't sure if they exist and now you think there are plenty of them?

You realize when you write things down people can read them later, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

The idea that all opinions are equally valid is a really dangerous one and it's definitely not true. Opinions are either better supported or more poorly supported and this directly relates to how credible they are. When you say that Trump's actions here are meant to distract us from something that we would presumably be paying more attention to otherwise and then can't even identify what that would be that strongly indicates your opinion is a poor one.

The judiciary relies almost entirely on the public's perception that it is a fair arbiter of disputes so yes, opinions are absolutely able to undermine the judiciary.

Then perhaps the judiciary should deviate from ruling along party lines, and that criticism is not exclusive to any one political party.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just a heads up Starbuck, you sound just like this idiot. Is that what you were going for?

I do not show disrespect to President Obama by calling him names, so no.

You are an objective, data driven person. So far, we have three prominent rulings against Trump from three Obama appointees. Objectively, is it beyond a reasonable doubt that some level of partisanship factored into their rulings. Objectively and as an observation, is it not plausible or worthy of addressing or discussing.

Or are we just going to dismiss facts because we don't like what the facts say. That is what climate change deniers do. In making your argument, you sound like those idiots. Is that what you were going for?