r'hllor's red lobster

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

409 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

SCOTUS really living up to its role as the foil of unchecked federal power I see. Well, let's just hope ISIS doesn't think of some radical new strategy for infiltrating our country, like a connecting flight from Saudi Arabia. But that's crazy talk. I mean ISIS is only a shadow organization with military training, a vast network of spies and hackers, and hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal. Why assume they can pull off the same thing as a Cuban guy with a raft. Thank you God-Emperor Trump for keeping us poor, frightened little fools safe.

Sarcasm aside, protecting the borders, in order to keep us safe, is actually his job.  He may not be the best person for the job, but it's the job he has.  

I think SCOTUS understands the importance of actually letting the President do his job when he comes to border security.  If he does it poorly, there's an election in 3 years.  

Meanwhile, if he tries to interfere with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or other guarantees and protections of the democratic process or rights of U.S. citizens, that would be when I would want SCOTUS to step in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sarcasm aside, protecting the borders, in order to keep us safe, is actually his job.  He may not be the best person for the job, but it's the job he has.  

I think SCOTUS understands the importance of actually letting the President do his job when he comes to border security.  If he does it poorly, there's an election in 3 years.  

Meanwhile, if he tries to interfere with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or other guarantees and protections of the democratic process or rights of U.S. citizens, that would be when I would want SCOTUS to step in.

When he is barring US citizens reentry to the US and seizing cell phones from citizens as a condition of reentry he is far overstepping the power granted to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sarcasm aside, protecting the borders, in order to keep us safe, is actually his job.  He may not be the best person for the job, but it's the job he has. 

My point, which apparently flew right over your head, is that this travel ban really does not do anything substantial to keep us safe from terrorism. It's just being a political ploy to make it appear to him appear effective to his gullible base.

It's kind of like the way most Gun-Free Zones are designed, not to prevent robberies or shootings, but to prevent assholes from walking into a Stop n Shop with an AR-15 and scaring away customers, "because they can." The difference is, unlike the meaningless tug of war that the left and right plays with ineffectual and toothless gun policies, many of the ploys that Trump uses to distract from his general ineffectual leadership actually do tangible harm to people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

My point, which apparently flew right over your head, is that this travel ban really does not do anything substantial to keep us safe from terrorism.

No. I understood it.  And what I got from it is that you think Trump is doing a bad job and should be voted out in 3 years.  The part I disagreed with is the idea that Trump would do an even better job with Federal judges looking over his shoulder second-guessing his every move.

Edited by Lew Theobald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When he is barring US citizens reentry to the US and seizing cell phones from citizens as a condition of reentry he is far overstepping the power granted to him.

Does this have something to do with the recent SCOTUS ruling, or is it a new topic?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lew Theobald said:

No. I understood it. 

Then why did you respond as if my claim was that the President exceeded his authority or jurisdiction in imposing the travel ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Then why did you respond as if my claim was that the President exceeded his authority or jurisdiction in imposing the travel ban?

Well, you seemed to sarcastically imply that SCOTUS ought to stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well, you seemed to sarcastically imply that SCOTUS ought to stop him.

Me: What Trump's doing is not protecting our borders.

You: But protecting the borders is the President's job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

No. I understood it.  And what I got from it is that you think Trump is doing a bad job and should be voted out in 3 years.  The part I disagreed with is the idea that Trump would do an even better job with Federal judges looking over his shoulder second-guessing his every move.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that once elected a President should not be under the scrutiny of Federal Courts.  That elections are the exclusive remedy for an overstep of power by the President.  

One of the purposes of the Federal Courts is to reign in the Government when it oversteps its authority.  What Trump is attempting to do with his travel bans is stepping beyond the authority granted to Trump under the US Constitution.  That's not a "wait till the next election" event.  It is a "stop it now" event.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Me: What Trump's doing is not protecting our borders.

You: But protecting the borders is the President's job.

By definition, everything Trump does is evil, wrong, racist, and bad, because every act he commits stems from his evil, wrong, racist, bad mind.  Presumably, we need a ruling from SCOTUS that it is unconstitutional for him to ever do anything ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

No. I understood it.  And what I got from it is that you think Trump is doing a bad job and should be voted out in 3 years.  The part I disagreed with is the idea that Trump would do an even better job with Federal judges looking over his shoulder second-guessing his every move.

Yeah, fuck checks and balances!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lew Theobald said:

By definition, everything Trump does is evil, wrong, racist, and bad, because every act he commits stems from his evil, wrong, racist, bad mind.  Presumably, we need a ruling from SCOTUS that it is unconstitutional for him to ever do anything ever again.

Order for strawman.  Order for strawman. Is there a strawman here?  Your order is up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lew Theobald said:

By definition, everything Trump does is evil, wrong, racist, and bad, because every act he commits stems from his evil, wrong, racist, bad mind.  Presumably, we need a ruling from SCOTUS that it is unconstitutional for him to ever do anything ever again.

By which I take to mean that you have no substantial argument to counter my criticism of the ineffectual nature of the travel ban to actually do what Trump claims it will, or Adam's point that it exceeds the authority of the POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that the troll is not getting is that Trump has taken an action that has no net effect on preventing a terrorist attack in this country while at the same time increasing the likelihood of terrorist recruiting around the world, thus making his action a net negative for the security of this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that once elected a President should not be under the scrutiny of Federal Courts.  That elections are the exclusive remedy for an overstep of power by the President.  

Funny that it seems that way to you.  Because I certainly said nothing of the sort.

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One of the purposes of the Federal Courts is to reign in the Government when it oversteps its authority.  What Trump is attempting to do with his travel bans is stepping beyond the authority granted to Trump under the US Constitution.  That's not a "wait till the next election" event.  It is a "stop it now" event.

It is not necessarily a "stop it now" event, and it is not clear that it exceeds his authority under the US Constitution.  SCOTUS does not seem too certain about that, anyhow.  But I expect they'll look into it.

A better example of a "stop it now" event would be an event that, if not stopped, would prevent the free and unfettered operation of the democratic process.  In such cases, waiting for the next election might not be an adequate remedy, for obvious reasons.

Generally speaking, the checks and balances of the Constitution were written with such considerations in mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

SCOTUS does not seem too certain about that

And you're basing this on...?

Quote

A better example of a "stop it now" event would be an event that, if not stopped, would prevent the free and unfettered operation of the democratic process.  

So, in your "mind" the only appropriate time for the Court to exercise Judicial Review over the Executive branch is if... what, a sitting President tries to suspect elections?

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Funny that it seems that way to you.  Because I certainly said nothing of the sort.

It is not necessarily a "stop it now" event, and it is not clear that it exceeds his authority under the US Constitution.  SCOTUS does not seem too certain about that, anyhow.  But I expect they'll look into it.

A better example of a "stop it now" event would be an event that, if not stopped, would prevent the free and unfettered operation of the democratic process.  In such cases, waiting for the next election might not be an adequate remedy, for obvious reasons.

Generally speaking, the checks and balances of the Constitution were written with such considerations in mind.  

No, you implied it but didn't say it.  You are very good with implication.  Then you jump up and down pointing out that you never explicitly said what you implied.  I will grant you that you didn't explicitly say "elections are the remedy".  But you continue to strongly push that implication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

So, in your "mind" the only appropriate time for the Court to exercise Judicial Review over the Executive branch is if... what, a sitting President tries to suspect elections?

Is that what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, you implied it but didn't say it.  

Okay.

Quote

You are very good with implication.  

You have declared it to be so.

Quote

Then you jump up and down pointing out that you never explicitly said what you implied.  

Obviously, that's not for me to say.

Quote

I will grant you that you didn't explicitly say "elections are the remedy".  

I did say that elections are a remedy.  I certainly did not say they were the only remedy.

Quote

But you continue to strongly push that implication.

It's so nice that I have you to speak for me.

Edited by Lew Theobald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.