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

[fskimospy]

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?

Can you elaborate on what deductive process you used to determine that 'objectively it is beyond a reasonable doubt that some level of partisanship factored into their rulings'?

Before you answer I would look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition

 

[fskimospy]

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

Judges routinely deviate from ruling along party lines, those decisions just don't get as much media attention as the 5-4 ones. Usually more than half of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous, for example. In 2014 (the first year that popped up when I searched), only 14% of decisions were 5-4, and less than half of those split along the commonly accepted liberal conservative cleavage.

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/01/supreme-court-had-highest-percentage-of-unanimous-decisions-this-session/

Since you say you're willing to accept facts when you don't like what they say, are you willing to revise your opinion now?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can you elaborate on what deductive process you used to determine that 'objectively it is beyond a reasonable doubt that some level of partisanship factored into their rulings'?

Before you answer I would look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition

If you are going to link to logical fallacies, at least link to the correct ones. I admittedly am arguing from
incredulity or to moderation or making an inductive conclusion based off loose correlation while you appeal to the stone.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Judges routinely deviate from ruling along party lines, those decisions just don't get as much media attention as the 5-4 ones. Usually more than half of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous, for example. In 2014 (the first year that popped up when I searched), only 14% of decisions were 5-4, and less than half of those split along the commonly accepted liberal conservative cleavage.

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/01/supreme-court-had-highest-percentage-of-unanimous-decisions-this-session/

Since you say you're willing to accept facts when you don't like what they say, are you willing to revise your opinion now?

I would be interested to explore if there is a correlation between the 14% and hotly contested partisan issues. I would argue that gun control, affirmative action, gay rights, immigration and abortion as topics susceptible to partisanship because there is not a national consensus on those issues

 

[fskimospy]

If you are going to link to logical fallacies, at least link to the correct ones. I admittedly am arguing from
incredulity or to moderation or making an inductive conclusion based off loose correlation while you appeal to the stone.

Fair enough, you're more just making a comically unsupported conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

I would be interested to explore if there is a correlation between the 14% and hotly contested partisan issues. I would argue that gun control, affirmative action, gay rights, immigration and abortion as topics susceptible to partisanship because there is not a national consensus on those issues

Okay so first you asked that judges deviate from partisanship. When informed that for SCOTUS at least 86% of the time their decisions were unanimous instead of admitting you're wrong about that you retreat to the 14% of cases. Remember, only 4 of those 10 (5.6%) fell along standard party line cleavages.

So basically you're saying that judges need to stop voting along party lines because they did so 5.6% of the time in that year. This isn't that many more than you would probably get from random assignment of justices.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Fair enough, you're more just making a comically unsupported conclusion.

Ignoratio elenchi

 

[senseamp]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28739373

An Iranian mathematician working in the US has become the first ever female winner of the celebrated Fields Medal.

Not welcome in Trump Trash's America?

 

[agent00f]

No. That only matters to you.

No, pretty sure it matters a lot to your leader. In fact his rationalization sounds just like yours for him here. The guy just can't get a fair shake.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

Which is the intent.

 

[fskimospy]

Which is the intent.

Of course it is, it's just more concern trolling.

I mean he said he expects people to be data driven and then when confronted with data that says the judiciary isn't partisan in the way he thought he just ignores it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, pretty sure it matters a lot to your leader. In fact his rationalization sounds just like yours for him here. The guy just can't get a fair shake.

Not sure I follow. I am of the opinion that our inmigration system is flawed and broken relative to what was in place for previous waves of immigrants. I believe we should secure our southern border and stem the flow, but I also recognize a wall is not the right answer. Neither is mass deportations. I similarly believe there is precedence and rationale for implementing travel bans, but not in the manner Trump has, and while his EO effectively accomplishes nothing, I am not going to knee jerk and scream fascism or constitutional crisis either. I only give credit to Trump in the sense that he has been decisive where previous administrations skirted the immigration issue as a political landmine.

 

[agent00f]

Not sure I follow. I am of the opinion that our inmigration system is flawed and broken relative to what was in place for previous waves of immigrants. I believe we should secure our southern border and stem the flow, but I also recognize a wall is not the right answer. Neither is mass deportations. I similarly believe there is precedent and rationale for implementing travel bans, but not in the manner Trump has, and while his EO effectively accomplishes nothing, I am not going to knee jerk and scream fascism or constitutional crisis either.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Life is just so unfair to him; all these hispanic judges, and now obama judges, just can't catch a break.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Of course it is, it's just more concern trolling.

I mean he said he expects people to be data driven and then when confronted with data that says the judiciary isn't partisan in the way he thought he just ignores it.

I didn't ignore the data. I chose to ignore you, because you decided to play the logical fallacies semantics game, even though you cited the incorrect type, and then you asked me to concede on a point I wasn't even trying to make. You will have to find a new witch to burn.

 

[Starbuck1975]

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Life is just so unfair to him; all these hispanic judges, and now obama judges, just can't catch a break.

I never raised the race of the judges as a concern. You are being intellectually dishonest and a douchebag. I've enjoyed some of our conversations. I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt given that I appreciate your perspective as a stark contrast to my own. Lose the hate my friend.

 

[agent00f]

I never raised the race of the judges as a concern. You are being intellectually dishonest and a douchebag. I've enjoyed some of our conversations. I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt given that I appreciate your perspective as a stark contrast to my own. Lose the hate my friend.

I didn't say you did, I'm saying you appear obligated to make at least some excuse for people who do. Courts ruling again us? Must be because they're hispanic/obama.

Can you really not grasp why any judge of reasonable intellect might be able to see right through this? Even without the Giuliani confession?

To gain the benefit of some perspective, just look at all the other conservatives sacrificing any claim to smarts by trying to pretend this isn't the Muslim ban Trumps has literally been bragging about for months.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't ignore the data. I chose to ignore you, because you decided to play the logical fallacies semantics game, even though you cited the incorrect type, and then you asked me to concede on a point I wasn't even trying to make. You will have to find a new witch to burn.

So now armed with this new data do you choose to revise any of your opinions?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So now armed with this new data do you choose to revise any of your opinions?

Hey thought you could use some good news.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-orders-trump-administration-allow-entry-immigrant-053752390.html