Poor Trump... keeps losing!

Yaya said:
Yeah, they look at effect as applied, such as impact. Nothing you cited backs up your claim that they look at what the legislatures said or intended to determine whether the law is unconstutional. Do you even know what you meant by your claim?

Try harder.
Click to expand...

BTW, you claimed they only looked at the law and not impact. The context of our discussion was...

Yaya said:
Doesn't matter what he intended, if, the actual order does not violate the constitution, Dick.
Click to expand...

Then why do they look at impact? Because as I said in my initial response...

Dick from the Internet said:
Sorry, you are wrong. There are several cases that show that facial neutrality alone is not sufficient.

Hialeah City vs Church of Bobalu (or whatever)
Walz v Tax Commission NYC
Gillette v. United States
Click to expand...

Now you are trying to retroactively change the context to only focus on whether things said can go to intent or be considered and you are wrong on that (see the Arlington case), as well. But my initial point is that facially neutral does not cut it and consideration of the impact proves that.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
Doesn't matter what he intended, if, the actual order does not violate the constitution, Dick.

Jarod said:
Oversimplification. The objective can be considered for several reasons.

A law can be unconstitutional on its face, or as applied. The objective must be a legitimate government interest, and rhetoric can be evaluated to consider the true, rather than stated, goal.
Click to expand...
Yurt the Trumptard must always defend his orange master...
 
I said I wanted to go fishing. I went to a movie. Some judge says that since I said I wanted to fish I need a fishing license to watch the movie........
 
Jarod said:
Whatever, I am not being paid to teach a Con law class. If you want to know your very little specific question, I am sure there is caselaw to back it up. Do some research. Otherwise go on spouting off uninformed opinions to lawyers about what appellate courts do and don't consider.
Click to expand...

Do you think the court made the right judicial decision? I know you agree with the decision because you can't wait to get more muslimes here because they agree with you on queer marriage.
 
Apparently I was wrong about using their words, but I never said they don't look at impact.

If that is case, then how can you think that Trump would ever win?
 
Especially since Trump later said it was not a Muslim ban. He may have wanted one, but grew up and realized he can't do that.

Interesting issue.

And for retard trolls, I ha e never supported the ban, just interested in the constitutional issues of the case.
 
A muslime ban would be legal under the statute


Trump should forge ahead. Fuck the court. They are not all powerful. He should reassert authority

Jail the judge to send a message
 
Teflon Don said:
Do you think the court made the right judicial decision? I know you agree with the decision because you can't wait to get more muslimes here because they agree with you on queer marriage.
Click to expand...

Based on the burden of proof required to keep the status quo until further judicial review can occur, yes I think the lower court made the correct legal ruling. I think the rulling will be different at the point when the standard is lowered for the Trump Team at the trial level and maybe appellate level.
 
Yaya said:
Apparently I was wrong about using their words, but I never said they don't look at impact.

If that is case, then how can you think that Trump would ever win?
Click to expand...


I said they can look beyond facial neutrality and you contradicted that but then contradicted yourself by acknowledging that they can consider the impact. You might not have intended to say they can only look at the text of the eo, but you don't believe intent is relevant so....

Scalia (who many right wing tards label a 'strict constructionist' though he adamantly denied it) goes beyond the text in the Hialeah case. He does not like the consideration of intent because it is difficult to discern. I don't entirely disagree. You would certainly prefer not to have to consider intent but it does seem necessary in these cases where covert intentions can easily be hidden.
 
I suppose that, fortunately, any coalition of the totally stupid and the utterly corrupt is bound to crap up everything it touches.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I said they can look beyond facial neutrality and you contradicted that but then contradicted yourself by acknowledging that they can consider the impact. You might not have intended to say they can only look at the text of the eo, but you don't believe intent is relevant so....

Scalia (who many right wing tards label a 'strict constructionist' though he adamantly denied it) goes beyond the text in the Hialeah case. He does not like the consideration of intent because it is difficult to discern. I don't entirely disagree. You would certainly prefer not to have to consider intent but it does seem necessary in these cases where covert intentions can easily be hidden.
Click to expand...

I was talking about impact before you even came on the scene. In fact, Jarod and I were talking about it and I said he misunderstood what the impact part was all about and I educated him.

I'll try and get back to you on the intent. My problem with it is, that means he can never change his mind. He has said the actual EO is not about a muslim ban, he may have said it before, but then realized what a mistake that was and now, because of his "mistake", our country's security could be put in jeopardy.

That is my hypo argument, and to be clear so people like you don't freak out, I have repeatedly said I am against the ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top