quote:

Clinton reminds us why we’re lucky she lost the election

Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Thank you for ­reminding America about the importance of Donald Trump’s victory and of the awful consequences if you had won.

Clinton sent out a taunting tweet of “3-0” after the three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously slapped a halt on Trump’s executive order on immigrants and ­refugees.

Her support for the ruling isn’t surprising — Clinton said she was for open borders at one point — but the gutter sniping was telling. The activist judges who based their ruling on their liberal politics instead of the Constitution are the same kind she would appoint to the Supreme Court and all other federal courts if she were in the Oval Office.

Thankfully, she won’t get the chance, a fact reinforced by Trump aide Kellyanne Conway. She fired back at Clinton with her version of “3-0,” tweeting “PA, WI, MI,” a reference to three formerly blue states, worth 46 electoral votes, that Trump flipped to his column. Touché!

And so it went in Week 3 of the Trump era, with Clinton’s taunt, the court ruling, nonstop demonstrations and congressional hijinks combining to illustrate why Trump’s election was crucial. It was a necessary course correction and a dramatic rejection of an arrogant government that both overreaches and underperforms.

Put another way, the hysterical, hateful reaction in many quarters to everything Trump says and does is absolute proof that the ruling elite deserved a comeuppance. The establishment was drunk on power, political and cultural, and never yielded an inch voluntarily or had the decency to admit error. Its rage reflects its sense of entitlement.

I felt that rage when I got an e-mailed death threat serious enough to turn over to the police. An NYPD officer taking my complaint quickly understood the point: “Oh, you must be pro-Trump,” she said. “I am, too, and I get into arguments all the time.” At least we got a laugh out of it.

There was no humor for South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who felt the rage in the form of racist hate mail. A black conservative and Republican, Scott read aloud on the Senate floor messages he received after supporting Jeff Sessions for attorney general.

He was called a “house Negro,” “a disgrace to the black race” and an “Uncle Tom,” among other vile epithets that included the ­N-word, Scott said. He added, “I just wish that my friends who call themselves liberals would want tolerance for all Americans, including conservative Americans.”

Trump’s education secretary, Betsy DeVos, also got a taste of liberal hate when Black Lives Matter protesters and teachers-union members blocked her entry into a Washington, DC, public school.

This unhinged rage is the new America — only it’s not new. It was hiding in plain sight, hinted at by the contempt that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, tenured radicals, college snowflakes and the Democratic media openly held for those who don’t share their worldview.

Trump’s victory ripped open the vein, but it would have erupted at any Republican president. Modern liberals’ contempt for others is essential to their sense of superiority and justifies violence in the streets, threats and simple rudeness. Contempt for others lets mayors think they can disobey immigration laws and judges think there is no law but theirs.

Still, there are reasons why the Court of Appeals ruling could be a blessing in disguise for Trump. Here are the two biggest.

First, the jubilation among Democrats and their media handmaidens reveals how their hatred for Trump and his supporters overshadows any concern for ­national security. The ruling that the government showed “no evidence” that the travel ban would prevent terrorism is preposterous and should alarm every American.

Any such evidence would be classified and certainly wouldn’t be produced in a hasty, one-hour hearing, which the judges conducted over the telephone. The Constitution and laws give the president wide authority to ­decide whether the entry of “any class of alien” would harm the United States.

Effectively claiming that authority for itself, the court grossly oversteps and obliterates the separation of powers. It also opens itself to public fury if the ruling opens the door to terrorists.

The second benefit is that the ruling offers Trump a sobering lesson about the difficult road ahead. Nothing can be taken for granted and every inch of progress will require intense preparation and a willingness to battle on multiple fronts.

The executive order, though sensible in its goals, was especially vulnerable because it was rushed before Trump’s team was in place. The result was confusion about whether it applied to green-card holders and dual citizens, and that ruined implementation at airports here and abroad.

Those are rookie mistakes, driven in part by Democrats’ delaying tactics in confirming Attorney General Sessions and others. Yet that reality only underscores how deep the hostility is and how little room there is for error. The lynch mob can succeed only if the White House provides the rope.

As a candidate and president, Trump has endured slings and ­arrows unprecedented in modern times. The onslaught is also harming America, but the madness will be bearable if he finishes the revolution he started.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/clinton-reminds-us-why-were-lucky-she-lost-the-election/?ref=yfp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Are you guys STILL running against Clinton?

No wonder you can never actually solve problems. Psst...reality is over this way!

[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Are you guys STILL running against Clinton?

No wonder you can never actually solve problems. Psst...reality is over this way!

[:D]

You have the mind of a child who isn't bright

This forum is about politics and religion

Hillary is a major alt left politician, who just made a comment relevant to the thread

Grow up, and learn how to think logically

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Reading your question again this morning, DS, lead me to this observation: a written Amendment is static. All written messages are static. By that I mean the scribe has had his say and often speaks no more. But communication requires a recipient and since the scribe is now silent perhaps forevermore, especially in the case of Amendments, the recipient is left to interpret what was written. So, yeah, every written piece must be judged and interpreted. That's what Courts do. In the case of the 14th Amendment there are contemporaneous letters and subsequent Court Opinions. Opinions are always interpretations, so they depend upon which historical and social frames the interpreters are using.

So, the US Constitution can be changed not only by amendment, but by changing the meanings of words, and also by changing the "historical and social frames the interpreters" use?
You don't need the scribe to be able to speak again, if you can go back and read his/her reasoning for what was written. If there is enough historical data to make a ruling on intent (beyond a shadow of a doubt could be a metric for determining what constitutes 'enough'), then the scribe doesn't need to speak anymore.
I am of the belief that intention trumps word usage.
Stare Decisis and precedent can be ruled against, too. If one SCOTUS rules one way, it's no guarantee that a different SCOTUS will come to the same conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

There is no difference in what we are saying. I mentioned both contemporaneous writings and stare dices. And yes, social frame does make a difference. That explains why Plessy v. Ferguson was replaced by Brown v. Board. There are some values which are transcendent of course and some that arise new from changed circumstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

He was the guy (by default) that we all agreed to (by virtue of the deal we signed)....to be the Prom King.

Done......over......

It is never over until the fat lady sings . . . right outta the Republican playbook.

(I'm fairly certain that was an operatic comment....not even remotely political....but....I'll leave you to your assumptions).

That is one possibility. Another is it refers to Kate Smith, who popularized the song "God Bless America" in 1938 as war clouds gathered in Europe. Very political.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zF7a0wB-Lg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The ones the courts reversed.

[:D]

quote:

So, all that needs to be done is to fill the court with Justices that think one way, and then get things you want overturned retried (different cases, but those that rely on the same, or extremely similar Constitutional laws).

I know FDR threatened to do something like that, and everyone is now afraid Trump is going to do it.

quote:

Social framework shouldn't matter at all. It's not about feelings, or mores. It's about law. I was vehemently opposed to Justice Sotomayor being confirmed, mostly based on her belief that a "wise Latina" would rule better than an white man; that the way she was raised would change the way she would rule. That's not right. That's not justice. That's not rule of law.

We have explanations written by those who were part of the ConCon and yet, we have had SCOTUS rulings opposed to those writings. That's little more than judicial activism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: vincentML

Social framework does not refer to "feelings." Where did that come from?

In Scott v. Sanders in the 1850s Judge Taney ruled that Dred Scott had no standing because he was not a citizen since he was a child of slaves, and they were not a class included by the Founders as citizens.


One of jefferson's bastard children,james hemmings, was with him in france and told tj that if he were to stay in france he would be a free man. Tj pled with him that it would cause him a great political embarassment if that were to happen and promised his bastard son his freedom on his return to amerika. The kid bought tj's bullshit and went back with him to amrika and no freedom so he ran away. Now if he had stayed in france wouldnt tanny's decission put the president in a position to demand france extradite the bastard?
From a different perspective since slaves counted as 3/5 of a citizen that percentage being more than half would seem to constitute a "super majority"
of a citizen. Slaves marriages were not recognized but scott was married in a civil cerimony in a free state so if he legally married that would constitute personhood in that state...The bassis for scott having personhood is far greater than the personhood confered on corporations by the scotus.
The issue here is tanny was a slave holder and believed in slavery and legislated from the bench to preserve it when it was clearly unconstitutional from a strict construction perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, all that needs to be done is to fill the court with Justices that think one way, and then get things you want overturned retried (different cases, but those that rely on the same, or extremely similar Constitutional laws).
I know FDR threatened to do something like that, and everyone is now afraid Trump is going to do it.

You make it sound so easy. But that is why the dissent of the Minority in the senate should be preserved with the 60 vote filibuster rule. Furthermore, SCOTUS turns away more cases than it hears each session; they only take cases that are on some point of interest.
FDR attempted to expand the Court with Justices beyond the traditional nine and was called out for "packing the Court" to get his legislation approved, or in response to their disapproval of one of his New Deal programs. In any case, nine is a tradition, not a constitutional imperative.
So, there are politics involved in picking the Justices? Wow, light bulb! Let's not skip over the fact that the Republicans would not allow even a committee hearing on Obama's pick for the Court in 2016.

quote:

quote:

Social framework shouldn't matter at all. It's not about feelings, or mores. It's about law. I was vehemently opposed to Justice Sotomayor being confirmed, mostly based on her belief that a "wise Latina" would rule better than an white man; that the way she was raised would change the way she would rule. That's not right. That's not justice. That's not rule of law.
We have explanations written by those who were part of the ConCon and yet, we have had SCOTUS rulings opposed to those writings. That's little more than judicial activism.

Social framework does not refer to "feelings." Where did that come from?
In Scott v. Sanders in the 1850s Judge Taney ruled that Dred Scott had no standing because he was not a citizen since he was a child of slaves, and they were not a class included by the Founders as citizens. Taney also ruled that the territories could not free slaves because they (the territories) were not present at the founding and because they would deprive a slave holder of his "property." Clearly, by 1868 there was a change in the social framework that could not have been foreseen by the Founders, and which made the Scott Decision moot.
The Founders were wealthy white merchants and white plantation owners/ slave holders, all males, living in a predominantly agrarian society. The appointment and approval of Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, Thurgood Marshall, Sonia Sotomayer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is testimony to the changing social frameworks in which the Court operates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, all that needs to be done is to fill the court with Justices that think one way, and then get things you want overturned retried (different cases, but those that rely on the same, or extremely similar Constitutional laws).
I know FDR threatened to do something like that, and everyone is now afraid Trump is going to do it.

You make it sound so easy. But that is why the dissent of the Minority in the senate should be preserved with the 60 vote filibuster rule. Furthermore, SCOTUS turns away more cases than it hears each session; they only take cases that are on some point of interest.
FDR attempted to expand the Court with Justices beyond the traditional nine and was called out for "packing the Court" to get his legislation approved, or in response to their disapproval of one of his New Deal programs. In any case, nine is a tradition, not a constitutional imperative.
So, there are politics involved in picking the Justices? Wow, light bulb! Let's not skip over the fact that the Republicans would not allow even a committee hearing on Obama's pick for the Court in 2016.

I know. I think that was a disservice, too.

What is looked at as a partisan thing, isn't really that partisan on the GOP side. I think the liberal judges are much more partisan in their ideologies and voting. Read an interesting article yesterday pointing out that Scalia wasn't as strong a conservative, ideologically, as most make him out to be. He was an originalist and a "textualist." I'm all-in on the originalism, but the textualism doesn't sit as well with me.

quote:

quote:

Social framework shouldn't matter at all. It's not about feelings, or mores. It's about law. I was vehemently opposed to Justice Sotomayor being confirmed, mostly based on her belief that a "wise Latina" would rule better than an white man; that the way she was raised would change the way she would rule. That's not right. That's not justice. That's not rule of law.
We have explanations written by those who were part of the ConCon and yet, we have had SCOTUS rulings opposed to those writings. That's little more than judicial activism.

Social framework does not refer to "feelings." Where did that come from?
In Scott v. Sanders in the 1850s Judge Taney ruled that Dred Scott had no standing because he was not a citizen since he was a child of slaves, and they were not a class included by the Founders as citizens. Taney also ruled that the territories could not free slaves because they (the territories) were not present at the founding and because they would deprive a slave holder of his "property." Clearly, by 1868 there was a change in the social framework that could not have been foreseen by the Founders, and which made the Scott Decision moot.
The Founders were wealthy white merchants and white plantation owners/ slave holders, all males, living in a predominantly agrarian society. The appointment and approval of Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, Thurgood Marshall, Sonia Sotomayer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is testimony to the changing social frameworks in which the Court operates.

What changed in the "social framework?" The way we felt about things, no? That's where feelings come in. Look at Prohibition. The way we felt about alcohol changed, didn't it? Isn't that also a big change in the "social framework?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
DS . . .
I would dispute that "feelings" changed regarding alcohol. What changed was who had the power to enforce their values. Speakeasies and bath tub gin were everywhere during Prohibition.

quote:

Many things changed by 1868. The Southern agrarian society was destroyed. People were no longer property (legally, at least, tho there is much to be said on that score about the abysmal conditions of forever.in.debt sharecroppers) The mindset of the nation had swung away from sectionalism to unity (however briefly) and the nation swung into the industrial revolution earnestly. Changes in political structure and economics bring changes in values.
Thanks for the article. It engenders more respect for Scalia.
"It should be noted that everyone relies to a significant extent on the original meaning and the language of a statute or the Constitution, which is the starting point for interpretation.
An important difference between originalists and others is that non-originalists will take a broader or developing view of the Constitution. Accordingly, for a non-originalist, contemporary values may play a key role in deciding, for example, what is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment."
There is a case coming before the Court in which a transgendered individual is suing his/her high school for use of the rest room that corresponds to their gender change. I wonder what principles the Founders would have applied to that situation???
It is not about "feelings" . . . it is about the changes in values and how we identify and categorize new events and new things.
Roe v. Wade is not invalid because abortion is omitted in the Constitution; the concepts of liberty and personal privacy are however.

quote:

2/3 of the States had to ratify the Prohibition amendment.

2/3 of the States had to ratify the repeal of Prohibition amendment.

Somewhere in those 14 years, the viewpoints of the voters flipped, no?

quote:

I think we're at loggerheads over the use of the word "feelings." I used (and continue to use it) as a synonym for "sentiment."

A guy at work recently told me he grew up in the South, and was quite prejudiced against blacks. He defined himself a racist back then. After he moved up North as a teen, he started to be around more black people, where he saw the error of his earlier prejudice. He's no longer a racist. He's dating a black woman, even. I think you might agree that his "feelings" towards black folks changed, no? While this is just an anecdote, it does demonstrate my usage of "feelings."

quote:

If it's unConstitutional now, it's always going to be unConstitutional, regardless of how people's sentiments change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed)

Umm.. does this qualify? This is a US citizen (born in the US) & it involves his work phone that is property of a US entity (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory). When he was released his employer had to run forensics to see what info was taken, if there was anything/spyware installed on the phone and they have had to involve legal counsel, they then had to give him a new phone & number.

Now most Americans attitudes are "oh well this doesnt apply to me so I wont concern myself with it" and stick their head back in the sand, but if you or your family travels, if you have friends outside of the US, if you own a company where your employees travel, either for work or on holiday, your info, trade secrets, customer info, etc can be compromised and your name put on a secret list by various alphabet agencies (especially if it turns out that someone you know is on a secret list, like being an OWS protestor/"terrorist").. and you never know when that will affect you or how.. So, imo, the way the US govt does these things should concern ALL Americans and US businesses... jmo..

"Bikkannavar is not Muslim, and was not returning from one of the countries subject to the ban. He's a US-born citizen who was on his way home to Los Angeles, where he works for the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But when Customs and Border Protection officers asked him to hand over his work-issued phone and provide the access PIN, he felt torn between his obligation to his employer and orders from another government agency, he said.

"I work on government projects. I've already chosen to give up privacy. It's not really about that what happened to me," Bikkannavar said.

"It's a matter of the privacy of anyone who interacted with me through that phone," he said. "I may be willing to give up privacy but I didn't make that decision for those people."

Officers led him into an interview room and gave him a form listing the reasons he may have been chosen for screening, he said. He can recall some of them, such as to determine his country of origin or because his name matches a person of interest in a law enforcement database.

Apart from the last one, "for random search," none seemed to apply to him, he said.

When an officer asked for his phone, Bikkannavar said, it gave him pause -- not just because it was a work-issued phone, but because it had other people's data on it, too. Under any other circumstances he would never give up his work phone. How would NASA respond?

"It's hard to try to consider all those consequences when you're sitting in an interview room and being told to give up the PIN."

Ultimately, he turned over the phone, his PIN and went to a holding area with other detainees until they returned his phone and released him."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detained-at-border-trnd/index.html