9th Circuit Tells the WLB to Go Fuck Himself

[SteelCurtain]

(that is - for those railing against it, tell me which parts you disagree with and we can discuss the issues surrounding it!).

It's fuckin' bad you commie cuck! Don't bring fuckin issues into it! President! Rights! Fuckin Mooslims!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Circuit court justices do not receive national security briefs.

[SteelCurtain]

Circuit court justices do not receive national security briefs.

They certainly have clearance (or more accurately don't need clearance) to view any evidence the Administration were to submit in support of their claims. They were asked to provide evidence that the bans were either prudent or necessary, and declined to or couldn't do so.

[popeyespappy]

declined to or couldn't do so.

I'm going to have to go with couldn't here.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Circuit court justices do not receive national security briefs.

While this is true, stating this flatly and without context misses two important points:

1) As the Court noted in its Opinion, the President was certainly within his rights to provide the court with classified information upon which his decisions were based.  The Court would have had to keep this confidential.  That the President didn't do this means that he either a) didn't actually have classified information he believed would be helpful to his cause or b) he didn't trust the confidentiality procedures of the 9th Circuit court (which would be a mind-boggling level of paranoia) or otherwise wasn't prepared to submit this information for in camera review.  That's his choice.

2) The statement suggests the existence of instances that are unreviewable, inasmuch as it implies the existence of situations in which some document/file/information X is needed to understand the constitutionality of a governmental decision, but the arbiters of constitutionality may not see X, and therefore the constitutionality of the decision *cannot effectively* be reviewed.  This is simply not the law, and if true would allow the President, any time a decision of his is challenged, to say "I have a *confidential* reason why I'm doing this, and if you (the Court) could see that, you would agree it's constitutional."  (Which, I shouldn't need to say, is absurd.)

[Amarok]

I was mocking trumps tweet calling the judge who stayed his Muslim Ban a so called judge. Despite being legitimately appointed to the job.

Oh yeah, Trump called the judge a "so called judge", but you can see why I didn't see it in context right?

Yes

---

Circuit court justices do not receive national security briefs.

While this is true, stating this flatly and without context misses two important points:

1) As the Court noted in its Opinion, the President was certainly within his rights to provide the court with classified information upon which his decisions were based.  The Court would have had to keep this confidential.  That the President didn't do this means that he either a) didn't actually have classified information he believed would be helpful to his cause or b) he didn't trust the confidentiality procedures of the 9th Circuit court (which would be a mind-boggling level of paranoia) or otherwise wasn't prepared to submit this information for in camera review.  That's his choice.

2) The statement suggests the existence of instances that are unreviewable, inasmuch as it implies the existence of situations in which some document/file/information X is needed to understand the constitutionality of a governmental decision, but the arbiters of constitutionality may not see X, and therefore the constitutionality of the decision *cannot effectively* be reviewed.  This is simply not the law, and if true would allow the President, any time a decision of his is challenged, to say "I have a *confidential* reason why I'm doing this, and if you (the Court) could see that, you would agree it's constitutional."  (Which, I shouldn't need to say, is absurd.)

But You must understand Neo Treats government apparently the same way he treats religion . "There must be some hidden reason for it to have happened because there must be"

---

Oh yeah, Trump called the judge a "so called judge", but you can see why I didn't see it in context right?

Yes

---

While this is true, stating this flatly and without context misses two important points:

1) As the Court noted in its Opinion, the President was certainly within his rights to provide the court with classified information upon which his decisions were based.  The Court would have had to keep this confidential.  That the President didn't do this means that he either a) didn't actually have classified information he believed would be helpful to his cause or b) he didn't trust the confidentiality procedures of the 9th Circuit court (which would be a mind-boggling level of paranoia) or otherwise wasn't prepared to submit this information for in camera review.  That's his choice.

2) The statement suggests the existence of instances that are unreviewable, inasmuch as it implies the existence of situations in which some document/file/information X is needed to understand the constitutionality of a governmental decision, but the arbiters of constitutionality may not see X, and therefore the constitutionality of the decision *cannot effectively* be reviewed.  This is simply not the law, and if true would allow the President, any time a decision of his is challenged, to say "I have a *confidential* reason why I'm doing this, and if you (the Court) could see that, you would agree it's constitutional."  (Which, I shouldn't need to say, is absurd.)

But You must understand Neo Treats government apparently the same way he treats religion . "There must be some hidden reason for it to have happened because there must be"

Fact is Trumps team couldn't make a case they lost end of story .The excuse there must be hidden documents somewhere that justify the Muslim ban is just weak .

[GUBU]

I'm curious whether you've read much of the material presented to the courts in some of these cases before you decided "originalists" interpret the Constitution using 20th century grammar? I ask because I have read some of the material available, and that is not what I found. In fact the opposite seems to be true. It is often the people arguing against the findings of the "originalists" that are attempting to redefine or limit the meaning of things found in the Constitution.

There's an obvious example; The second amendment. Originally meant to signal that the US army would be a citizen militia staffed by volunteer citizens who would have the right to bear arms in order to carry out their duty, the "originalists" have reinterpreted the amendment to "everybody, git yer guns!"

[Minimalist]

Circuit court justices do not receive national security briefs.

Apparently neither does the fucktard president.  He lacks the attention span for it.

[popeyespappy]

I'm curious whether you've read much of the material presented to the courts in some of these cases before you decided "originalists" interpret the Constitution using 20th century grammar? I ask because I have read some of the material available, and that is not what I found. In fact the opposite seems to be true. It is often the people arguing against the findings of the "originalists" that are attempting to redefine or limit the meaning of things found in the Constitution.

There's an obvious example; The second amendment. Originally meant to signal that the US army would be a citizen militia staffed by volunteer citizens who would have the right to bear arms in order to carry out their duty, the "originalists" have reinterpreted the amendment to "everybody, git yer guns!"

Did you read the example I included with my post? It was about District of Columbia v. Heller. The case where SCOTUS ruled the second amendment was an individual right. In that case much of the evidence presented in support of an individual right was commentary from the time the Bill of Rights was written by the people involved. People who would have known what the original intent was. The arguments against an individual right were for the most part decades or even centuries after the fact. The legal team arguing against an individual right even included an argument in the lower courts that congress had changed the meaning of militia from what the founders intended after the fact.

I believe this because I have read at a lot of the case information myself. The ruling, dissenting opinion and several of the amicus briefs from both sides. So I'll ask my original question again. Have you read any of the arguments presented to the courts in cases that were decided on the basis of the court's opinion of original intent before you declared the originalists were changing definitions to suit themselves, or are you basing your opinion on something you heard someone else say? i.e. hearsay.

[Minimalist]

In that case much of the evidence presented in support of an individual right was commentary from the time the Bill of Rights was written by the people involved. People who would have known what the original intent was.

You're correct, Pap.  Except the Constitution was the follow-up to the Articles of Confederation which, in Article VI, specifically lays out the responsibilities of the states:  but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

So indeed they knew quite well that they did not mean every shithead with a gun when they wrote the phrase "well-regulated militia."  A bunch of shitheads with guns is a mob not a militia.