• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Are you saying the is ridiculous or the judgement? Or both?

That sentence is missing a noun....

I'm saying the Court's Order is ridiculous, and that Shapiro is correct. A basic premise of standing is that you must allege a particularized harm -- one different from what every other citizen could allege. Ciizens in general can't just challenge a law simply because it is unconstitutional.

This judge's vision of standing is so malleable that anyone could concoct an argument to meet that standard, which means it is incorrect.

There are other issues as well, but again, you can't effectively lay out full legal arguments on a message board. Using shorthand, abbreviated arguments with other lawyers who understand the relevant caselaw already...sure. But otherwise no.
 
That sentence is missing a noun....

I'm saying the Court's Order is ridiculous, and that Shapiro is correct. A basic premise of standing is that you must allege a particularized harm -- one different from what every other citizen could allege. Ciizens in general can't just challenge a law simply because it is unconstitutional.

This judge's vision of standing is so malleable that anyone could concoct an argument to meet that standard, which means it is incorrect.

There are other issues as well, but again, you can't effectively lay out full legal arguments on a message board. Using shorthand, abbreviated arguments with other lawyers who understand the relevant caselaw already...sure. But otherwise no.
"Eo" got deleted.

Got a new phone and the keyboard is shit and my thumbs are still fat and i still text and drive

Hawaii apparently barely even takes in refugees, and especially not from those countries
 
"Eo" got deleted.

Got a new phone and the keyboard is shit and my thumbs are still fat and i still text and drive

Hawaii apparently barely even takes in refugees, and especially not from those countries

Ah, ok.

Well, I'm not a big fan of the EO itself. But I think the EO is much less important/significant than the judicial overreach of tossing it out.
 
Ah, ok.

Well, I'm not a big fan of the EO itself. But I think the EO is much less important/significant than the judicial overreach of tossing it out.
I mean it really solves nothing right? Were just trying to fulfill campaign promises?

Ill move the rest of my questions to the other thread
 
I mean it really solves nothing right? Were just trying to fulfill campaign promises?

Ill move the rest of my questions to the other thread

I think what it would actually do in practice is allow the reevaluation of the screening procedures, and the folks who are doing it. I think it's more difficult to do that when those people are still actively doing that job.
 
Show me where i agreed with him.
I don't want you to trust me . I want you to counter what Information I present with your own clear coherent thought.
If you don't agree with shapiro then don't post him

In the judges order The state of hawii presents three people impacted not just one.
The state of Hawaii also references overall impact o it college universities and not just for current students but future students and their families.
Shapiros take is a mischaracterization.
Which concept are you disagreeing with @David?
That Executive orders aren't laws?
if so present evidence to show the contrary. the shapiro article doesn't do that.
That States has the right to sure the federal government ?
If you disagree with that please show evidence to the contrary.
The shapiro article doesn't refute that.
The Judges order clearly states that the original order was part of the temporary injunction.
I mean I am not sure what you are countering me upon or what information your choosing to not trust or trust.
I just asked that you read the judges order yourself.
What was the point of posting the Shapiro article again? there are no facts presented. it is an inflammatory editorial and the author misrepresents the truth to make his point.

I'm not posting on here to debate what this or that reporter said. I am posting here on the EO and the following litigation. based on the facts.

I mean if your not willing to form your own opinion. or just trying to bait people into a generic article perhaps this isn't the best thread for you.

I don't want to discuss Be Shapiros opinions. if I did I would e mail him. if you want to discuss your opinions or god forbid do some research because if your gonna blindly follow what someone from he press says then I am not sure what your trying to do other than make a thread about the Immigration EO and court litigation more about what Ben Shapiro said.

no one on here needs @David to trust them or believe them.
 
I don't want you to trust me . I want you to counter what Information I present with your own clear coherent thought.
If you don't agree with shapiro then don't post him

In the judges order The state of hawii presents three people impacted not just one.
The state of Hawaii also references overall impact o it college universities and not just for current students but future students and their families.
Shapiros take is a mischaracterization.
Which concept are you disagreeing with @David?
That Executive orders aren't laws?
if so present evidence to show the contrary. the shapiro article doesn't do that.
That States has the right to sure the federal government ?
If you disagree with that please show evidence to the contrary.
The shapiro article doesn't refute that.
The Judges order clearly states that the original order was part of the temporary injunction.
I mean I am not sure what you are countering me upon or what information your choosing to not trust or trust.
I just asked that you read the judges order yourself.
What was the point of posting the Shapiro article again? there are no facts presented. it is an inflammatory editorial and the author misrepresents the truth to make his point.

I'm not posting on here to debate what this or that reporter said. I am posting here on the EO and the following litigation. based on the facts.

I mean if your not willing to form your own opinion. or just trying to bait people into a generic article perhaps this isn't the best thread for you.

I don't want to discuss Be Shapiros opinions. if I did I would e mail him. if you want to discuss your opinions or god forbid do some research because if your gonna blindly follow what someone from he press says then I am not sure what your trying to do other than make a thread about the Immigration EO and court litigation more about what Ben Shapiro said.

no one on here needs @David to trust them or believe them.
Dude youre all over the place.
I specifically stated i didn't know, several times. Are you trying to force me to have an opinion? Why? Thats weird. Ive acknowledged that im not read up on this.

I was told not to listen to ben shapiro. I posted the article to see where it was wrong. Q said its accurate.

Do you just want to debate me on a subject that i dont really care about and im not familiar with? That seems silly.

And now IM trying to bait YOU? I posted an article. Youre making this personal.
 
I was told not to listen to ben shapiro. I posted the article to see where it was wrong. Q said its accurate.

Well, don't take my word for it. Here is a dissent (preceded by a pointless one-paragraph concurrence) filed by five judges on the Ninth Circuit, all saying that even the original order was constitutional.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/15/state.of.washington.et.al.v.trump..pdf

Now, the real point here is that this dissent, which lays out all the relevant caselaw, etc., is twenty-five pages long. But if someone really demands that you get into the nitty gritty, you'd have to read all the cases cited in that opinion, putting you in the 1000 page + range. Shapiro gave a birds-eye view that lawyers versed in those issues understand. People are free to agree with it or not. I personally give it a 10/10.

Expecting a lay person to lay out all the arguments in a paragraph or two on a message board, or else not bother posting articles at all, is patently unreasonable. Heck, Shapiro's own article discussing the decision is longer than most posts have any right to be.
 
Last edited:
Here is an article that did not agree with he current decision that supports its conclusions with facts.
https://lawfareblog.com/revised-refugee-executive-order-courts-detour-or-speed-bump

also I'm not sure why @The Human Q-Tip would discourage someone from reading the actual court order. especially sense so many legal "experts often disagree on legal rulings.

one thing a lay person could gather immediately from reading the courts order is that the article posted misrepresented several parts of the case needless to support it conclusions in spectacular fashion


Nor is the expectation of a thread based on actual legal documents submitted that people familiarize themselves with the actual content as opposed to just parroting social media.
 
also I'm not sure why @The Human Q-Tip would discourage someone from reading the actual court order. especially sense so many legal "experts often disagree on legal rulings.

Where did I state that people shouldn't read the dissenting opinion? I'd hope they would.

My point was that posting a well-grounded, solid argument would take 25 pages - if the dissent could have written it in fewer pages, they would have done so. Therefore, demanding that someone post such an argument ("in their own words", even) as a condition of posting Shapiro's article is impractical.

What part of the Order do you believe Shapiro misrepresented?
 
Where did I state that people shouldn't read the dissenting opinion? I'd hope they would.

My point was that posting a well-grounded, solid argument would take 25 pages - if the dissent could have written it in fewer pages, they would have done so. Therefore, demanding that someone post such an argument ("in their own words", even) as a condition of posting Shapiro's article is impractical.

What part of the Order do you believe Shapiro misrepresented?
I am assuing you mean judicial order for the sake of clarity
well for starters there was three specific individuals cited in the state of Hawaii's case Shapiro only referenced one and misrepresented that citation as well

I think the Supreme court will uphold the replacement order but I have no problems with the lower court issuing a temporary injuction.
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem with the whole thing, and after reading the decision again, why it isn't based on run-of-the-mill precedent or reasoning :

How can a court ignore an EO that claims it isn't a "Muslim Ban" when POTUS is running around as recently as Thursday calling it a Muslim Ban?

Trump is such a fucking moron that he is essentially undermining his own EOs because he can't stop campaigning and using the same election cycle buzzwords so he can bask the adulation of his supporters. Dicta. Dicta. Dicta.

Trump is his own worst enemy. Which everyone already knows. People with NPD are incapable of recognizing that they are in error or making mistakes.
 

By admitting that Obama didn't use a foreign agency, this is basically proof that he lied about wiretapping.

Saying he used quotes doesn't matter because there's nothing indicating surveillance of any sort (also he didn't even consistently use quotes). Their sources seem to be Breitbart and a couple Fox News reporters, but both houses have come out saying there is no evidence for something that Trump has the power to prove if such proof existed. This was simply an outlandish BS claim from the start and they've been backtracking with more BS culminating in this apology. Much like the voter fraud lie, this is a waste of time and money, and a distraction from the more important Russia investigation and the budget/healthcare fights. What was Trump to gain other than diverting the press? Tear down Obama? Make himself look more innocent? Piling up lies doesn't make him look better.

Speaking of wasting money, could he cool it on the Mar-a-Lago trips that are racking up the bills?

Wait, how do I bitch about this dude while being non-partisan? Are we allowed to have a "bitch about the president" thread? We can keep it up for the Republicans to bitch if the Democrats ever get their shit together again.

Oh, and apparently the proposed budget brings cuts to NASA, which is a bummer. One of the few things I was hopeful about with Trump was that he was supposed to be a fan of space. Like I guess I heard that and bought it? We've been undervaluing NASA for a while and now more cuts. Cuts pretty much across the board if you're not defense. Hopefully the one positive I was expecting, improving our infrastructure, does take place.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top