Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing  The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Team 57 fishing  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  Last Chance Fishing Tackle 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Lawless court gets @#$# Slapped!

  1. #1

    Default Lawless court gets @#$# Slapped!

    So when's the protest? Don't let me down now ya hear?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c45555d...-trump-to.html
    Last edited by steelhead; 09-13-2017 at 05:55 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Sorry steelplatehead, but you've got your facts wrong:

    In an interim ruling on June 26, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration can implement most of the travel ban until the case is resolved, but that the administration must allow entry to those who have a "bonafide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.

    The court, however, did not define the meaning of "bonafide relationship." In its Sept. 6 decision, a 9th Circuit panel said the description should include refugees who have assurances of resettlement support from nine religious and charitable organizations that work with the U.S. government.

    That definition was deleted by Tuesday's Supreme Court order.
    So, the 9th Circuit decided on a undefined aspect of the SCOTUS interim ruling, which ultimately resulted in the high court clarifying their 6/26 decision pending arguments on the ban in October. So in all aspects of this article, lawfulness was applied to Trump's executive order.

    Seems the only b!tch-slapping going on around here is self-inflicted by you.
    Last edited by Lady Quagga; 09-14-2017 at 05:05 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Yeah sure thing you lack reading comprehension. The 9th circuit court tried to put an injunction on the Supreme Court 6/26 ruling by stating that there was ambiguity in the decision but they did not ask for clarification, they overstepped their jurisdiction. They were summarily ***** slapped and told that the original 6/26 ruling stood. So GTFOH with your lawfulness argument. Kinda like you referring to people hopping the border illegally undocumented immigrants or Mexican nationals. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Quagga View Post
    Sorry steelplatehead, but you've got your facts wrong:



    So, the 9th Circuit decided on a undefined aspect of the SCOTUS interim ruling, which ultimately resulted in the high court clarifying their 6/26 decision pending arguments on the ban in October. So in all aspects of this article, lawfulness was applied to Trump's executive order.

    Seems the only b!tch-slapping going on around here is self-inflicted by you.Sorry steelplatehead, but you've got your facts wrong:



    So, the 9th Circuit decided on a undefined aspect of the SCOTUS interim ruling, which ultimately resulted in the high court clarifying their 6/26 decision pending arguments on the ban in October. So in all aspects of this article, lawfulness was applied to Trump's executive order.

    Seems the only b!tch-slapping going on around here is self-inflicted by you.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Yeah sure thing you lack reading comprehension. The 9th circuit court tried to put an injunction on the Supreme Court 6/26 ruling by stating that there was ambiguity in the decision but they did not ask for clarification, they overstepped their jurisdiction. They were summarily ***** slapped and told that the original 6/26 ruling stood. So GTFOH with your lawfulness argument. Kinda like you referring to people hopping the border illegally undocumented immigrants or Mexican nationals. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.
    In its Sept. 6 decision, a 9th Circuit panel said the description should include refugees who have assurances of resettlement support from nine religious and charitable organizations that work with the U.S. government.

    That definition was deleted by Tuesday's Supreme Court order.

    The definition was DELETED meaning your left wing nut job courts request to expand the original decision was swatted down like a pesky little mosquito. That's somehow a win huh?

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    Yeah sure thing you lack reading comprehension. The 9th circuit court tried to put an injunction on the Supreme Court 6/26 ruling by stating that there was ambiguity in the decision but they did not ask for clarification, they overstepped their jurisdiction. They were summarily ***** slapped and told that the original 6/26 ruling stood. So GTFOH with your lawfulness argument. Kinda like you referring to people hopping the border illegally undocumented immigrants or Mexican nationals. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.
    Your parents have any children that lived?

    - There are two injunctions, one issued in Honolulu (upheld by the 9th) and one from Maryland (upheld by the 4th). Both injunctions remain in effect.

    - On 6/26 SCOTUS agreed to review both cases. Arguments are scheduled for October 10th. Both injunctions remain in effect.

    - At the same time SCOTUS agreed to review the cases, they issued an interim ruling permitting partial implementation of the travel ban pending a final ruling by the high court. At issue was the the term "bonafide relationship", which was not defined by SCOTUS. The 9th rendered a ruling (NOT an injunction) defining the term, which was overruled yesterday by the high court. And once again, both injunctions remain in effect.

    Once again, all lawful, all within the scope of all judges/courts/jurisdictions involved, and all accomplishing what was necessary, whether one agrees with the decisions or not.

    Next time you accuse someone of lacking reading comprehension, you might want to brush up on your remedial English skills first.

    Any other mouth-breathing idiots care to contribute?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    In its Sept. 6 decision, a 9th Circuit panel said the description should include refugees who have assurances of resettlement support from nine religious and charitable organizations that work with the U.S. government.

    That definition was deleted by Tuesday's Supreme Court order.
    The 9th made the ruling on the 7th, not the 6th. Forget your misinterpretations - you can't even get basic facts right.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    The definition was DELETED meaning your left wing nut job courts request to expand the original decision was swatted down like a pesky little mosquito. That's somehow a win huh?
    With regard to these specific rulings, I have no problem with the actions taken by the 9th or SCOTUS. At issue here was your blatant misinterpretation of the facts.

    As for my personal views on the matter: I am focused less on the interim rulings and more on the upcoming Oct. 10 arguments and subsequent decision by the high court.

  7. #7

    Default

    Lipstick on a pig is still a pig

    The 9th rendered a ruling (NOT an injunction) defining the term, which was overruled yesterday by the high court. And once again, both injunctions remain in effect.

    9th Circuit tried to overstep their jurisdiction and was overruled. You stating that these courts are within the law is technically correct but their political bias rulings getting overturned at the highest percentage of any court is what I call a ***** slap!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    Lipstick on a pig is still a pig
    Oh yeah, about that:

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    Kinda like you referring to people hopping the border illegally undocumented immigrants or Mexican nationals. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.
    I see you're using your personal love life to make an analogy. Très classy.

    Be that as it may, I am quite comfortable using the term "illegal alien", though "undocumented immigrant" and "Mexican national" are more-or-less accurate. What I find interesting is your "border hopper" reference, a derogatory term typically used by the lowest form of bigoted trash.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    9th Circuit tried to overstep their jurisdiction and was overruled.
    Wrong. They did not overstep their jurisdiction. Get a clue.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    You stating that these courts are within the law is technically correct
    Either they overstepped, or were within the law. (Btw, it's the latter.)

    Make up your mind already. Oh yeah, and get a clue.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    [T]heir political bias rulings getting overturned at the highest percentage of any court is what I call a ***** slap!
    The courts are biased, even SCOTUS. This is a concept fervently rejected (usually) in public, but it's true. If you think otherwise, then you haven't been paying attention to Supreme Court nominations/confirmations for the past 40 years.

    And of course, since your initial "b!tch slap" description didn't hold up, you broadened it to include a wider range. And of course, you play up the percentages as some sort of vindication for your backward political views.

    The hubris of the politically biased, crying outrage at the alleged political bias of others.

  9. #9

    Default

    Kid here's your participation trophy, everyone's a winner even you! The majority of illegals in this country are border hopper and yes from the south so I'm not politically correct whooty @$## Do. They tried to define a ruling by the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's a loss in my books but you get technical all you want because you are the generation raised on positive reinforcement and it doesnt matter if you finish last at least you tried!


    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Quagga View Post
    Oh yeah, about that:



    I see you're using your personal love life to make an analogy. Très classy.

    Be that as it may, I am quite comfortable using the term "illegal alien", though "undocumented immigrant" and "Mexican national" are more-or-less accurate. What I find interesting is your "border hopper" reference, a derogatory term typically used by the lowest form of bigoted trash.



    Wrong. They did not overstep their jurisdiction. Get a clue.



    Either they overstepped, or were within the law. (Btw, it's the latter.)

    Make up your mind already. Oh yeah, and get a clue.



    The courts are biased, even SCOTUS. This is a concept fervently rejected (usually) in public, but it's true. If you think otherwise, then you haven't been paying attention to Supreme Court nominations/confirmations for the past 40 years.

    And of course, since your initial "b!tch slap" description didn't hold up, you broadened it to include a wider range. And of course, you play up the percentages as some sort of vindication for your backward political views.

    The hubris of the politically biased, crying outrage at the alleged political bias of others.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    Kid here's your participation trophy, everyone's a winner even you!

    [...]

    [Y]ou are the generation raised on positive reinforcement and it doesnt matter if you finish last at least you tried!
    Aww, making assumptions about which generation I grew up in, how cute. But seeing as how an illiterate hypocrite like you considers facts mere "technicalities", it's no surprise you got this wrong as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    The majority of illegals in this country are border hopper and yes from the south so I'm not politically correct whooty @$## Do.
    Correction - make that an illiterate bigoted hypocrite. At least you embrace it.

    And YOU are from the South? Nooooo......

    Quote Originally Posted by steelplatehead View Post
    They tried to define a ruling by the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's a loss in my books
    Incorrect - they did not try to define the ruling in toto, just a two-word term the high court failed to define its first time around.

    Of course you would see it as a loss. Given the piss-poor performance of your party in general - and this administration in particular - you'll grab at anything to make yourself feel better.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •