/snort, lol.
It's amazing that people can chime in on a topic and be almost entirely uniformed of the legal issues. Like, @ControlWarrior, do you know that we already have a very intensive immigration screening process? Just, you know, fyi.
The President has no power allowing him to bypass or ignore our Constitution. It is the role of... well, pretty much everybody, to enforce what is Constitutionally appropriate over the President's demands. Anybody that feels pressured otherwise or acts in the President's favor when doing so directly conflicts with our Constitution is effectively going against the very principles our nation was founded on.
The President, regardless of anything, is one man. The constitution is the bedrock of our society. He, nor anybody else, surpasses its authority outright.
The Founding Fathers are really treating Trump unfairly. It's very unfair of them to have written the Constitution the way they did. SEE YOU IN COURT, Founding Fathers!
Eat yo vegetables
Ahh right you hate activist court rulings? That means you want to go back to the original and true meaning of the second amendment whereby only members of active militia's can own fire arms?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...cond-amendment
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
"The Supreme Court chooses which cases it wants to hear, and it generally doesn't hear the cases that were clearly correctly decided. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear appeals of a minuscule number of cases that the circuits decide. Over ten years, the Supreme Court reviewed only 0.153% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions.
So when you talk about circuit reversal rates, you're talking about a tiny, tiny sample size. To put it another way, 99.847% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions over those ten years were not reversed."
Try again.
As noted earlier,
a) saying "the majority of its rulings were overturned" is patently untrue. The vast majority of their rulings were never brought to SCOTUS. This is an outright lie.
b) and even if you meant "of those rulings SCOTUS actually heard", then that's true for ALL OF THEM.
Your statement is both ridiculous and undefendable.
Of the cases that the Supreme Court heard from the Ninth Circuit, it is true that 80% of those rulings were overturned. 75% of the Tenth's, 72.9% of the of the Sixth's, 72.5% of the Fifth's, and 71.9% of the Second's were likewise overturned. Even what we could call the best circuit, the Seventh, was reversed more than 50% of the time.
But once again, this only accounts for the cases that the Supreme Court doesn't outright dismiss. As I explained earlier, 99.847% of the Ninth's rulings were not reversed. That best circuit, the Seventh? Their rulings were not reversed 99.807% of the time.
So this "clown fiesta" of a circuit that has "far and away the most overturned" rulings actually only has their rulings reversed 0.04% more often than what we could call the best circuit.
Last edited by AndaliteBandit; 2017-02-10 at 06:29 PM.