Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Eh, classified is classified regardless as to if it's public knowledge, and it doesn't require specifics to get ran into. Babbling about it to the public is... not looked upon kindly, generally.

[Starver]

Although not actually true to this latest thing, reminds me of this...

[EnigmaticHat]

Oh, and btw, a Hawaiian judge has blocked the new travel ban. He has also cited other Trump aides/allies statements about it as one massive factor.

Do federal judges do background checks and the like on lawmakers and then stop legislation whenever a new tax law is being passed? Or copyright law? You know, to stop "hidden agendas" such as tax loopholes and draconian copyright laws due to bought politicians.

Because if they don't then this whole "previous statements" thing feels rather selectively applied.

Its unlikely a judge would do the research themselves AFAIK, but interested parties AKA lawyers?  Hell yeah.  Using the defendant's statements against them is a classic tactic and totally legal.  If I tweet "I'm going to murder my boss" and then I murder my boss, you bet its going to be admitted as evidence if anyone finds it.

Common RL example: let's say a Mosque has trouble pushing its building plan through and sues the city for discrimination.  A lawyer in such a case might try to catch the zoning board on a pattern of rejecting plans for Mosques, or find previous similar building plans that were accepted.  They might also look to statements made by city officials relating to the Mosque.  Everything is fair game.  The difference isn't whether or not you look, its that in most cases the evidence you turn up will be weak.

Compare Trump and his advisers, who have left a massive paper highway leading straight to them.

[da_nang]

Oh, and btw, a Hawaiian judge has blocked the new travel ban. He has also cited other Trump aides/allies statements about it as one massive factor.

Do federal judges do background checks and the like on lawmakers and then stop legislation whenever a new tax law is being passed? Or copyright law? You know, to stop "hidden agendas" such as tax loopholes and draconian copyright laws due to bought politicians.

Because if they don't then this whole "previous statements" thing feels rather selectively applied.

Its unlikely a judge would do the research themselves AFAIK, but interested parties AKA lawyers?  Hell yeah.  Using the defendant's statements against them is a classic tactic and totally legal.  If I tweet "I'm going to murder my boss" and then I murder my boss, you bet its going to be admitted as evidence if anyone finds it.

Common RL example: let's say a Mosque has trouble pushing its building plan through and sues the city for discrimination.  A lawyer in such a case might try to catch the zoning board on a pattern of rejecting plans for Mosques, or find previous similar building plans that were accepted.  They might also look to statements made by city officials relating to the Mosque.  Everything is fair game.  The difference isn't whether or not you look, its that in most cases the evidence you turn up will be weak.

Compare Trump and his advisers, who have left a massive paper highway leading straight to them.

What worries me here is that the judges are being inconsistent. There is precedence that the spirit of the law doesn't matter (cf. tax loopholes) such that everyday court always uses the letter of the law.

So why would they get up in arms over the spirit of a law being passed when the spirit has no bearing on verdicts when applying this law?

[Reelya]

There's a difference.

A religious-based ban is unconstitutional.

Exploiting tax loopholes is NOT unconstitutional.

This has nothing to do with the "spirit of the law" because tax loopholes are about what citizens do, and this judgement is actually about the constitutionality of a law itself. Two completely not-comparable situations.

[neo1096]

What worries me here is that the judges are being inconsistent. There is precedence that the spirit of the law doesn't matter (cf. tax loopholes) such that everyday court always uses the letter of the law.

So why would they get up in arms over the spirit of a law being passed when the spirit has no bearing on verdicts when applying this law?

The problem with this is that the judges can only be active this way when they are handed a case to make a ruling on. So if no one brings a case to the court, the judge can't do anything about a law. Given how infrequently we see people taking the tax code to court, I don't see much of the double standard you are suggesting is being created.

[Strife26]

Eh, classified is classified regardless as to if it's public knowledge, and it doesn't require specifics to get ran into. Babbling about it to the public is... not looked upon kindly, generally.

Babbling about it to the public is a crime. For example, there was an example of (if I recall) a classically publicity hungry SEAL publishing his memoirs. After a determination was made that the book contained classified information, it became illegal for anyone in the DoD to look at it, even though it was a publicly available work 

[sluissa]

Eh, classified is classified regardless as to if it's public knowledge, and it doesn't require specifics to get ran into. Babbling about it to the public is... not looked upon kindly, generally.

Babbling about it to the public is a crime. For example, there was an example of (if I recall) a classically publicity hungry SEAL publishing his memoirs. After a determination was made that the book contained classified information, it became illegal for anyone in the DoD to look at it, even though it was a publicly available work 

Except the president can't be prosecuted for normal crimes while in office. There is quite a bit of leeway for impeachment to happen if congress deems it necessary, but the normal justice system doesn't apply and until Congress decides to take that step, nothing really matters. Even impeachment is only really "firing" the president. No normal punishment happens, no prison time is possible, no legal recourse for individuals affected to be compensated.

[da_nang]

There's a difference.

A religious-based ban is unconstitutional.

Exploiting tax loopholes is NOT unconstitutional.

Except I can literally search through the entire legal text and see it makes no literal distinction of religions.

This here is the only mention of anything religious:

Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion.  While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion.  That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

Have Obama place the same travel ban on Europe and I bet there wouldn't be any outrage of similar fervor crying out against the "Christian ban".

Sections that included the word "religion" in the previous executive order:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

[...]

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

Note that no specific mention of Islam, muslim or anything was present in the legal text. It's all generic taking no stance against any religion thus not violating the Establishment clause.

It also shouldn't matter which country you place the ban on as you can just as easily change them to any arbitrary set of countries. And this part is important: regardless of which countries are chosen, the legal effects should be the same. Basically, change any and all countries to generic countries A, B, C and so on and apply the law generically. Is it still a religion ban? Because I can't see how.

I mean, if you banned citizens from every country in the world from entering, would it still be called a Muslim ban? And considering the letter of the law is what's important and is what every single case will be decided upon due to precedence, trying read between the lines is pointless.

What worries me here is that the judges are being inconsistent. There is precedence that the spirit of the law doesn't matter (cf. tax loopholes) such that everyday court always uses the letter of the law.

So why would they get up in arms over the spirit of a law being passed when the spirit has no bearing on verdicts when applying this law?

The problem with this is that the judges can only be active this way when they are handed a case to make a ruling on. So if no one brings a case to the court, the judge can't do anything about a law. Given how infrequently we see people taking the tax code to court, I don't see much of the double standard you are suggesting is being created.

Point is we have tax loopholes and tax avoidance due to judges only caring about the letter of the law. Why else would they be considered legal? If judges followed the spirit, the powers that be would be roasting Apple right now. Hell, tax avoidance schemes could probably be considered organized crime.

But we don't, so why care about the spirit now when the judges haven't before? This whole thing reeks of political bias all the way to across the pond.

[Gigaz]

Apparently, the problem with the Trump government is by now not that Trump is a bad president (which he probably is). It's that high-ranking people mistrust his motives and his judgement.

[EnigmaticHat]

da_nang, you are tackling a huge issue I think you need to do additional research about.

Tax law only goes to court if its challenged.  If the IRS has chosen to follow the tax code exactly and allow a loophole, who exactly is going to challenge that?  I really doubt there's anyone that would take the IRS to court to INCREASE their taxes.

Furthermore, a US citizen sending in their taxes, and a US president issuing an executive order, are vastly different circumstances.  There's almost nothing the same about those two things.

[WealthyRadish]

Dang, who knew all you needed to violate the constitution was a clumsy semantic argument?

Look, it even said in the order that it doesn't target muslims, he thought of everything!

Oh god I really don't want to turn into mainiac

[misko27]

Well people, if it's so objectionable then the Supreme Court will take it up. It is a lower court, after all, and it's decisions are not final.

And if I may ask, where precisely is everyone getting their knowledge of constitutional law? I'd assume based on the conviction with which I hear arguments spoken in this thread that we were a flock of constitutional experts. Please, enlighten me as to how I might be so wise.

[da_nang]

The most common constitutional argument I hear is the Establishment Clause.

da_nang, you are tackling a huge issue I think you need to do additional research about.

Tax law only goes to court if its challenged.  If the IRS has chosen to follow the tax code exactly and allow a loophole, who exactly is going to challenge that?  I really doubt there's anyone that would take the IRS to court to INCREASE their taxes.

Furthermore, a US citizen sending in their taxes, and a US president issuing an executive order, are vastly different circumstances.  There's almost nothing the same about those two things.

I'd imagine those that don't like the tax avoiding corporations would file a legal complaint or class-action lawsuit at them if the spirit of the law is what's important.

Either way, everyday court and not just tax cases, have followed the letter. Why care about the spirit now? Because it's Trump?

Please, judges, pick one and stick to it.

[Frumple]

... did constitutional law even come up in the last page or two? Saw the word mentioned like twice, and most of the discussion didn't really have much to do with it. Y'all seem to be talking more about what's allowed as evidence, and maybe a bit of judicial inconsistency, not anything about that particular sort of law.

In any case, vis a vis it being a religious ban, the reason the EOs can be called that, and (iirc, it's entirely possible I'm misremembering exactly what got the first struck down, and what's going to get the second one, too) part of the reason they got squashed, had little to nothing to do with the body of the law itself, and everything to do with comments both explicit and otherwise by the people making it. Not lawyery enough to quote exactly why that's involved, but it is so *shrugs*

As for the tax loophole thing, I'd bet a fair amount of money I don't have that in any case a tax code issue went in front of a judge, where the people trying to get the loophole running or maintain it had spent months screeching to the public what they were intending to do, they'd get similarly kicked in the metaphorical nads for their blithering incompetence.

Though yeah, judges are inconsistent. Welcome to the USA, where they're chosen by like a half dozen different methods and quality control is a concept heard of in stories of distant shores. Feel free to push for something less wobbly than that, but in the mean time maybe don't kvetch about what times shit actually works like it's supposed to.