LannaGuy Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: Yes. The ones you disagree with are the politically influenced ones because you are clearly an expert on the consitution and u.s. law. oh and the POTUS and his legal team are not also? I have demonstrated that in the UK the Supreme Court cannot overturn Parliament yet you gloss over that and please learn how to spell 'constitution' if you are to be taken seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 25 minutes ago, smedly said: The is no room in any political landscape for courts and judges making or reversing policies that are implemented legally by Government - and when you mention Judicial above - it is not meant in the way you are intimating and if you think the Judges and Courts are not getting involved in anything political - why do they keep mentioning the words "Democrat" and "Republican" when talking about the Judges indicating that it is their political affiliation not law that influence their decisions - there is something very very fundamentally wrong about that - they are not independent basing judgments on points of Law smedley, you actually think the courts are not part of the government? The fact that the judicial branch can place an injunction on the executive branch is one of the major tenets of the US checks and balances system. The fact that the judges may not be unbiased is dreadful; however, they are human and many owe their parties for their appontments. However, judge James Robart is a Republican and was appointed by GW Bush another Republican. So it appears he may be a judge who does not necessarily go along party lines--more power to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said: oh and the POTUS and his legal team are not also? I have demonstrated that in the UK the Supreme Court cannot overturn Parliament yet you gloss over that and please learn how to spell 'constitution' if you are to be taken seriously The US is not the UK. Why do you keep citing what the UK can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 The stay might have been planned on and could just be part of a bigger plan to marginalize the court...Nota fan of Trump, but he's no fool.Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stander Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, mogandave said: The stay might have been planned on and could just be part of a bigger plan to marginalize the court... Nota fan of Trump, but he's no fool. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect The Trump team slammed the left with so many EO's then waited to see which they would over-react to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, smotherb said: The US is not the UK. Why do you keep citing what the UK can do? Chicog stated 'No it's the Courts (in UK)' and yes we have a 'checks and balances' system and it is not the Courts I simply demonstrated that UK Courts are not elected by politicians nor can the Supreme Court (or any lower) overturn Parliament pointing this out is completely on-topic anyway i was simply replying to the 'have you heard of a system of checks and balances'? my answer is YES we have one in the UK. Anyway as you point out it is not the UK so let's move on :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, LannaGuy said: oh and the POTUS and his legal team are not also? I have demonstrated that in the UK the Supreme Court cannot overturn Parliament yet you gloss over that and please learn how to spell 'constitution' if you are to be taken seriously 46 minutes ago, LannaGuy said: oh and the POTUS and his legal team are not also? I have demonstrated that in the UK the Supreme Court cannot overturn Parliament yet you gloss over that and please learn how to spell 'constitution' if you are to be taken seriously So if the Supreme Court cannot overturn Parliament and Parliament can enact whatever it pleases, where are the checks and balances in the system? Are elections the only recourse? Do Britons have no inviolable rights? And please, don't take the intellectually bankrupt course of citing a typo to impeach an argument. Because when you do, it inevitably invites the question, "Is that all you've got?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 4 hours ago, stander said: The Trump team slammed the left with so many EO's then waited to see which they would over-react to. Now there's a brilliant plan; you should be one of Trump's advisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 9 hours ago, LannaGuy said: You have deliberately taken my point out of context and the UKSC CANNOT and DOES NOT overrule Parliament Maybe things were different when you were there but you didn't know it :) Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament? No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to 'strike down' legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court's role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy. https://www.supremecourt.uk/faqs.html Well that's odd, because only recently it overruled the government to mandate that Brexit could not be launched without an act of consent of Parliament. As far as I know, the US Supreme Court does not formulate public policy either. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is there to interpret laws (and EO's) to determine whether or not they are constitutionally acceptable. Ergo, both Supreme courts are there as a check against overreaching by the other branches of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerojero Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 And I'm sure his soon appointing of a supreme court judge will be totally non-political. He's such a hypocrite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
optad Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Chicog said: Well that's odd, because only recently it overruled the government to mandate that Brexit could not be launched without an act of consent of Parliament. As far as I know, the US Supreme Court does not formulate public policy either. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is there to interpret laws (and EO's) to determine whether or not they are constitutionally acceptable. Ergo, both Supreme courts are there as a check against overreaching by the other branches of government. I am not a constitutional lawyer either but I think the rub here is that in the westminster system laws are made in parliament and interpreted by the court when asked. There are preceding matters which help shape these codified statements and as such all should have some natural integrity. I should also add, there is great preparation to these presentations to parliament and intense study done on implications of such act before they are presented. They may well have politics in these laws but they do not pass into law unscrupulously. Takes a referendum to change the constitution however. In the US, things are a bit looser because of the constitution and numerous federalised states reliant on that document. An executive order, is a decree that needs to legally exist under the governance of relevant federal law, ie not making new, therefore if unlawful can be rescinded by a court interpreting the existing codified statements as they exist. I don't think a minister or prime minister has the same executive power to issue an american presidential style EO unilaterally. Cabernet is a mitagating force, and ministers a very transitory position, i'e non four year tenured job which tends to enforce more democratically responsive policy. Wait to be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 9 hours ago, Chicog said: Well that's odd, because only recently it overruled the government to mandate that Brexit could not be launched without an act of consent of Parliament. As far as I know, the US Supreme Court does not formulate public policy either. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is there to interpret laws (and EO's) to determine whether or not they are constitutionally acceptable. Ergo, both Supreme courts are there as a check against overreaching by the other branches of government. no it ruled that Parliament HAD TO vote on it and they did (i.e. the court nor the govt. could make that decision) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, LannaGuy said: no it ruled that Parliament HAD TO vote on it and they did (i.e. the court nor the govt. could make that decision) Yes, thery had to vote, in other words, consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherstuff1957 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 There is a precedent for a president ignoring the ruling of a court - even the Supreme Court. Back in the 1830's the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal" act was unconstitutional. Jackson simply ignored them and proceeded to send the people of the "Five Civilized Nations", the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole, off west of the Mississippi on the "March of Tears". A lot of people are referring to Trump as a "Jacksonian" president. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's legacy is tainted in the same way that Jackson's is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeincnx Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 37 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said: There is a precedent for a president ignoring the ruling of a court - even the Supreme Court. Back in the 1830's the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal" act was unconstitutional. Jackson simply ignored them and proceeded to send the people of the "Five Civilized Nations", the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole, off west of the Mississippi on the "March of Tears". A lot of people are referring to Trump as a "Jacksonian" president. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's legacy is tainted in the same way that Jackson's is. Heck, he even re-hung the portrait of the American Lion back in the oval office. Sadly, these two have way too much in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, otherstuff1957 said: There is a precedent for a president ignoring the ruling of a court - even the Supreme Court. Back in the 1830's the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal" act was unconstitutional. Jackson simply ignored them and proceeded to send the people of the "Five Civilized Nations", the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole, off west of the Mississippi on the "March of Tears". A lot of people are referring to Trump as a "Jacksonian" president. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's legacy is tainted in the same way that Jackson's is. Can you provide the legal citation for the US Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act? I ask because I find no such case ever went to the USSC for review. There were three cases dealing with sovereignty of Indian reservations established by treaty with the US that held it was unconstitutional to abrogate those treaties for specific matters (ie., US federal prosecution of a defendant fora crime committed within an Indian reservation, requiring a federal license to operate within an Indian reservation) not related to the Indian Removal Act. https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/indian-removal/ So while the Courts' decisions on the three other cases IMPLIED (a would of, should of, could of) that the Indian Removal Act was also unconstitutional, the Act itself was never ruled unconstitutional. Jackson therefore did not ignore any court decision rendering the Act as unconstitutional. You want a hero? Davy Crockett did oppose the Act. Trump is no Davy Crockett. Edited February 12, 2017 by Srikcir layout change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherstuff1957 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 ^The case I was referring to is Worcester v. Georgia, 1830. While the case does not directly address the Indian Removal Act, it does affirm the rights of the Indian Nations as sovereign states and goes on to say "Chief Justice John Marshall ... argued that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. Those rights, he stated, include the sole right to deal with the Indian nations in North America, to the exclusion of any other European power. This did not include the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws." Quoted from Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResandePohm Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 On 2/11/2017 at 11:32 AM, ilostmypassword said: Because the United States has something the UK lacks: a written Constitution. Britain has the Magna Carta (written) and several hundred years of laws supporting it. An old and well proven system. Many constitutions around the world have as there basis the British Magna Carta, including the USA. So why do you insinuate that the US constitution is better with its ridiculous gun laws which kill more Americans than immigrants from the so called banned countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andaman Al Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 On 2/12/2017 at 10:42 AM, Srikcir said: You want a hero? Davy Crockett did oppose the Act. Trump is no Davy Crockett. No you are right, but he has an almost identical hair-do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.8d1a71394325b508272291755f4e1850.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now