Originally Posted by wdmso
So you support what he say's with out question
This is what you have referred to in another post as an "imaginary conclusion" by you. What I said was: "From the snippets that were pasted together here, his edited responses At least, from the larger context to which Miller is obviously referring, I believe he is correct in what he says." That is not support without question. It is a claim that I "believe" that (not unquestionably support) in what I think is the larger context to which he is referring he is correct.
and the manner in which they are expressed ok i see that ... I would guess however if this was 6 months prior and under the old administration by A senior adviser conducted in the same tone.. your response would not be the same
Your guess would be wrong. I would be concerned with what I considered the veracity of the statement. And would only comment on the tone, maybe sarcastically, if I thought he was putting on a tone and manner of emphatic truthfulness when he knew that he was lying.
“We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,”
In various ways, that is true. There is no general supremacy of the Court over the other two branches. They are co-equal within the domain assigned to them by the Constitution. The Court's constitutional power is to adjudicate if another branch is acting within its constitutionally enumerated domain. It does not have the power to enforce that decision (as was demonstrated by Andrew Jackson when he said re the Court's decision in the case that led to the infamous Trail of Tears) "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson went ahead and did what he wanted in spite of the Courts ruling against him.
And Court decisions can be reversed, so are not necessarily "supreme" forever.
But the Court has no constitutional supremacy in creating law. It has only the power to interpret whether the law is being followed. Which is what I'm guessing Miller was referring to.
"What the judges did, both at the ninth and at the district level, was to take power for themselves that belongs squarely in the hands of the president of the United States
"No, the three judges made a broad, overreaching statement," Miller insisted. "This is a judicial usurpation of power."
As I said, this is what he meant by there not being judicial supremacy. The Judges disregarded settled constitutional law regarding which branch has power over immigration into this country, as well as disregarding Federal immigration law also which includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The only thin constitutional notions they could hang their decision on (1)was the question if there was religious discrimination inherent in the EO. But the fact that most Muslims (which reside outside of the seven designated countries) are not banned made that assertion ridiculous. At any rate the Federal statute would override that argument even if it were correct. And (2) the other notion was that there needed to be a rational basis for the ban. Rational basis as a level of scrutiny (the lowest level) was originally derived through faulty reasoning which created the famous footnote 4 in the U.S. vs Caroline Products Co. FDR's packed New Deal Court needed to defend the Federal Governments overreach in banning the interstate selling of a variety of milk--which on its face appeared to be an unconstitutional ban. The decision to uphold the Government's ban was on a concocted, supposedly rational, basis that the "filled" milk that the company produced was not as nutritional as whole milk and was injurious to public health. In actual fact, it was not injurious to health, but was healthy, nutritious. But it was cheaper than whole milk and was popular during the depression because it cost less. However, one of the main goals of the New Deal was to sustain pre-depression prices with the idea that it would help to sustain the devastated economy. Its effect was actually only to remove the ability of a cash strapped public to buy cheaper milk. And it effectively removed a competitor to the dairy industry.
And most importantly, it introduced another spurious way the Progressive Court could allow government to skirt the Constitution.
The irony in the 9th Circuit application of rational basis in this Trump EO case is that the original application was for the express purpose of expanding government's power vis a vis the Constitution, but in this current case it was used to limit government power. And the concept of rational basis was not even given its full scope. Rational basis as originally conceived by the Court required only that "Under rational basis review, it is entirely irrelevant what end the government is actually seeking and statutes can be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a legitimate interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review. Judges following the Supreme Court's instructions understand themselves to be obligated to seek out other conceivable reasons for validating challenged laws if the government is unable to justify its own policies"
Ironically, rational basis scrutiny was used in this case to deny government policy rather than justify it. And the Court not only didn't seek out other conceivable reasons for validating the EO, it didn't recognize the very conceivable and even likely occurrences that the government based its policy on.
I believe that all of the above is part of what Miller meant by judicial usurpation of power, etc.
"There are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote," Miller told ABC News. "That is a scandal; we should stop the presses. That's the story we should be talking about, and I'm prepared to go on any show, anywhere, anytime and repeat it and say the president of the United States is correct, 100 percent."
That's an opinion many people have, and if he has the moxie to go on any show and repeat it, more power (and luck) to him. I'm agnostic on that opinion, but I'm not hysterical about it.
#^&#^&#^&#^&ERSON: When I talked to Republicans on the Hill, they wonder, what in the White House -- what have you all learned from this experience with the executive order?
MILLER: Well, I think that it's been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is -- is -- is beyond anything we've ever seen before.
I don't disagree with that per what I said above
The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.
Is this really supposed to be controversial. That the President will use his powers to protect the country?
Sears and K-Mart this week have decided to pull Mr. Trump's home furnishing lines from their Web sites.
Is that a direct attack on the president's policies, as well?
MILLER: I'm not going make a comment on that. I don't have any information on it. I do want to say that Sean Spicer, as always, is 100 percent correct and that what he said is true and important. And I agree with it.
Like Pontius Pilate might say, I find no fault in what he said. I certainly don't get all quivery fearful, nor have the stunned "OMG did he say that" reaction that the panel at the end of the video had.
I have seen statements like this before only on the History Channel
|