another hollywood has-been trying for 15 minutes more....

[FishermanTim]

Sub-par "comedian" Sarah Silverman is calling for a military uprising to overthrow the government. (I know it's not the "exact" wording, and the downtrodden Dems will try to word it more patriotically...)

She was never an "A-lister" and probably needs as much time in the spot light as possible to justify her measly existence, but this latest tweet comes off as nothing short of a incitement to riot against the president.

She is just one of many actual "D-list" performers that would do the world a hell of a lot of good if they just disappeared from the face of the planet!

[Raven]

no she can still do porn

[wdmso]

But the POTUS can tweet this and no one cares

President Trump launched an early morning Twitter offensive against a federal judge Saturday after U.S. District Judge James Robart


The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

but a nobody tweets against Herr Trump.. and Trump supporters and conservatives were quick to tear Silverman's tweet to shreds, calling for her to be arrested for treason and even using anti-Semitic rhetoric against the Jewish stand-up comedian.

to funny

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1116341]But the POTUS can tweet this and no one cares

President Trump launched an early morning Twitter offensive against a federal judge Saturday after U.S. District Judge James Robart

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!


nytimes.com Jan 28, 2010 - President Obama aimed unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices in his State of the Union address.

CBS NEWS January 28, 2010 Obama took the extraordinary step in Wednesday's State of the Union address of slamming the Supreme Court for last week's decision striking down limits on corporate spending on political advertisements.

Obama's frontal assault on the Supreme Court in a State of the Union is almost unheard of for a President.

" I don't ever remember a Democratic president, in a State of the Union address, take on the Supreme Court for a recent decision and dare Congress to overturn it.

But in his speech, Obama was in your face--blasting the Court and urging Congress to undo the decision.

The justices at first appeared inscrutable as Obama spoke and...... Democrats cheered.

[scottw]

Wayne....this judge went beyond the normal scope of his influence...but what he did is within the scope of his powers(seldom used for good reason)....that's fine...but look at his rationale for doing so....

"This emphasis on uniformity was key to Judge Robart’s order. He acknowledged the Trump Administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states -- Washington and Minnesota. But Judge Robart rejected the request, concluding that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”


this is pretty funny considering the fact that Obama and his administration spent the last 8 years picking and choosing which immigration laws they were going to enforce or not enforce....


wonder where this judge was with his broad powers then????


Politico 6/16/12 Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

"Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Wayne....this judge went beyond the normal scope of his influence...but what he did is within the scope of his powers(seldom used for good reason)....that's fine...but look at his rationale for doing so....

"This emphasis on uniformity was key to Judge Robart’s order. He acknowledged the Trump Administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states -- Washington and Minnesota. But Judge Robart rejected the request, concluding that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”


this is pretty funny considering the fact that Obama and his administration spent the last 8 years picking and choosing which immigration laws they were going to enforce or not
enforce....

did oboma ma call them a so-called judge,

wonder where this judge was with his broad powers then????


Politico 6/16/12 Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

"Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”

The right had no issues with Suing Obama over his executive orders
and praised the Judges who sided with them . now the shoes on the other foot ... and we get this judge went beyond the normal scope of his influence. his infuluence is the law ??

wonder where this judge was with his broad powers then???? rather irrelevant seeing Judges can only rule on cases put in front of them

The bigger issue for me is not the order it will runs it legal course.. its Trumps Willingness to openly attack insult people and institutions
because he thinks he is above due process and those people who challenged his Exec orders ... its not a business but he still thinks he can behave as if it is

Did Obama insult the judges ? by call them a so-called judge no he disagree with them in public and said why


if Trump said said this The opinion of this judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned! no issue

[scottw]

Trump continues to crawl under the very low bar that Obama set over the last 8 years....you should applaud him for sticking to the standard and precedent and not going "rogue" ..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The right had no issues with Suing Obama over his executive orders
and praised the Judges who sided with them . now the shoes on the other foot ... and we get this judge went beyond the normal scope of his influence. his infuluence is the law ??

wonder where this judge was with his broad powers then???? rather irrelevant seeing Judges can only rule on cases put in front of them

The bigger issue for me is not the order it will runs it legal course.. its Trumps Willingness to openly attack insult people and institutions
because he thinks he is above due process and those people who challenged his Exec orders ... its not a business but he still thinks he can behave as if it is

Did Obama insult the judges ? by call them a so-called judge no he disagree with them in public and said why


if Trump said said this The opinion of this judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned! no issue

Sounds like your trying to make an issue out of something that is not an issue. Unless you're trying to suppress free speech. That would be an issue. Presidents have a long history of insulting people, overtly or back-handedly. That's been a hallmark of being "presidential" as well as pretending to be "moderate."

As for your "but a nobody tweets against Herr Trump.. and Trump supporters and conservatives were quick to tear Silverman's tweet to shreds, calling for her to be arrested for treason and even using anti-Semitic rhetoric against the Jewish stand-up comedian," Americans have always done this sort of thing as is their right. The anti-Semitic rhetoric, if it occurred, is obnoxious and uncalled for, but it is a far cry from destroying property and physically assaulting people which are not part of free speech and are against the law. And it is that riotous, illegal, anti-American behavior that is an issue which leftist rhetoric is currently promoting.

[detbuch]

Regarding Trump's "so-called judge" remark which is what is supposedly controversial, perhaps there is some merit to his characterization of the judge:

The Judge Who Halted Trump’s Immigration Order Has Made Some Wacky Rulings in the Past
Posted in RED STATE at 8:30 pm on February 4, 2017 by Patterico

Last night I reported that a federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, has issued a sweeping nationwide order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration.

Today, we are learning more about that judge . . . and some of it is unsettling.
For example, last August, the Seattle Times reported that Judge Robart had favorably cited the “black lives matter” movement in a ruling on a civil dispute:
U.S. District Judge James Robart, pointedly reacting to the Seattle police union’s rejection of a tentative contract, said Monday he would not let the powerful labor group hold the city “hostage” by linking wages to constitutional policing.
“To hide behind a collective- bargaining agreement is not going to work,” Robart said during a dramatic court hearing he opened by laying out a path for police-accountability reform and closed with an emotional declaration that “black lives matter.”
. . . .
Robart ended the hearing with deeply personal remarks, in which he noted a statistic that showed, nationally, 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population.
“Black lives matter,” he said, drawing a startled, audible reaction in a courtroom listening to the words coming from a federal judge sitting on the bench.

Also troubling are Judge Robart’s attempts to dictate the terms of proposed statutes, based in part on the “expertise” of “consultant” Merrick Bobb, a hack who runs around posing as a police expert when he knows next to nothing. From the Seattle Times story:
During Monday’s hearing, [Judge Robart] provided a blueprint for what he would like to see in the legislation, based on various proposals produced by city officials, the Community Police Commission (CPC) and the court-appointed federal monitor, Merrick Bobb.
My eyes are rolling so hard I could probably knock down bowling pins with

But wait, there’s more! Judge Robart also denied a request for a man (“John Doe”) expelled from Amherst to depose and obtain records from a “victim” of sexual assault — records that might show that the woman was the aggressor and that Doe was expelled improperly — because it would hurt the “victim’s” feelings. Robby Soave at Reason.com explains the background:
The incident in question took place years ago, during the late night / early morning hours of February 4-5, 2012. Jones was Doe’s girlfriend’s roommate at the time. Jones went to Doe’s dorm room and sexual activity ensued: Jones performed oral sex on Doe.
But Doe was blackout drunk at the time—a detail that Amherst administrators deemed “credible,” on subsequent review. Of course, it’s questionable whether a blackout drunk student can actually provide the level of consent that Amherst’s sexual misconduct policy requires.

Other factors cast doubt on the idea that Jones was the victim and Doe the perpetrator. After leaving Doe’s dorm room, Jones texted another male student and asked him to come to her dorm room for sex. She also texted a residential advisor about her “stupid” decision to engage in sexual activity with her roommate’s boyfriend. In these text messages, Jones admitted that she was “not an innocent bystander.” She also complained about how long it was taking this second male student to do anything sexual with her. She did not file a complaint against Doe until two years later.

Doe was expelled. He then sued Amherst, and subpoenaed Jones for a deposition and for “documents and records of statements she made about the alleged assault.” Judge Robart denied the request because of Jones’s feelings:
An in-person deposition of boundless scope would impose a substantial burden on Ms. Jones. (Subpoena at 1; see also Resp. at 7 (“Until a deposition begins, it is very difficult to know where it will lead and impossible to predict all the topics that may be explored with a witness.”).) The deposition would force Ms. Jones to relive a night in which she asserts Mr. Doe sexually assaulted her. (See, e.g., Clune Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 4; Resp. at 6-7.) It would also reraise the subsequent investigation, hearing, and period of publicity that Ms. Jones has endured. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 5 at 11-12; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56.) It takes no leap of logic to reason that a live deposition would impose emotional and psychological trauma upon Ms. Jones.

I would imagine that being expelled over a B.S. allegation would also “impose emotional and psychological trauma” on someone. But when you’re a male accused of sexual assault in a college environment, facts often don’t matter. You’re presumed guilty — and even in a civil proceeding which is all about determining whether you actually did what you were accused of, you’re not entitled to key evidence on that question.

According to this judge.

These decisions do not instill confidence in the judgment of this particular jurist.
We’ll see what happens.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Raven

no she can still do porn

I think she's pretty hot and would love to see her display her wares....just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Trump later implied that if an attack occurs, federal Judge James Robart should be blamed: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

Wow he really doesn't understand how the the System works

Feeling over facts again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump later implied that if an attack occurs, federal Judge James Robart should be blamed: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

Wow he really doesn't understand how the the System works

Feeling over facts again

I saw that tweet attacking the judge, made me cringe. Let Sean Hannity do personal attacks, the POTUS should be above that.

"he really doesn't understand how the the System works "

Could be that the judge (if he is advocating for a personal cause instead of relying on the law) also doesn't understand how the system works.

Here is a sincere question...how does Trump's ban, interfere with the Constitutional rights, of anyone covered by the Constitution? What was the legal basis for the judge's decision? I didn't see it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here is a sincere question...how does Trump's ban, interfere with the Constitutional rights, of anyone covered by the Constitution? What was the legal basis for the judge's decision? I didn't see it.

This is one report on his reasoning:

The judge’s decision says he granted the temporary restraining order because the states are “likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” were likely to “suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;” and because “a TRO is in the public interest.” Robart will rule at a later point on whether to permanently stop the Trump order.

The judge’s ruling says the “states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds.” The residents of the states are affected “adversely” in the areas of “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” the judge’s order says.

None of those seem to be about the constitutionality of the EO. Of course, being constitutional under the present norm, is merely a matter of opinion. Probably the most important opinion that he gives is that the plaintiffs were“likely to succeed on the merits of the claims;” He doesn't give any constitutional reason on the merits of the claims. He doesn't need to since it is a temporary stay to be decided further by arguments from both sides.

And if the case got to the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted, at least half, the Progressive half, would concoct some social justice reason they would claim lies in some penumbra or emanation of the Constitution. So the decision of the appellate court would stand. And that being the 9th Circuit in this case, a very Progressive Circuit, the EO would be struck down. Another reason for the left to stall the appointment of Trump's nominee.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one report on his reasoning:


None of those seem to be about the constitutionality of the EO.

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:

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.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result and not the law.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I saw that tweet attacking the judge, made me cringe. Let Sean Hannity do personal attacks, the POTUS should be above that.

"he really doesn't understand how the the System works "

Could be that the judge (if he is advocating for a personal cause instead of relying on the law) also doesn't understand how the system works.

Here is a sincere question...how does Trump's ban, interfere with the Constitutional rights, of anyone covered by the Constitution? What was the legal basis for the judge's decision? I didn't see it.

Ask these people

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

The states include New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.


and he's not a liberal Judge

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could scarcely be clearer:

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.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result, not the law.

Trump hasn't shown "detrimental to the interests of the United States"
he just feels thats the case .... Courts dont go with fake news or feelings and thats why the they put a temporary stop to his order .. he need to provide the evidence of what is detrimental to the interests of the United States and how not just because he says so

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

.. he need to provide the evidence of what is detrimental to the interests of the United States and how not just because he says so

in which statute did you find this fact?

Judge Robart wrote this at the end of his order....

"Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches."

he's apparently a so-called comedian as well

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Courts dont go with fake news or feelings

you are aware that Robart's order will now be weighed by the Ninth Circuit, which hold's the distinction of being the most liberal/progressive court in the nation and not coincidentally the most frequently overturned and reversed court in the nation and which once notably ruled the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" ... in 2011 during the Supreme Court session the high court reversed or invalidated 19 out of 26 decisions reviewed from the 9th Circuit.

that's a pretty bad percentage for a Court/judges ruling based on "law" and not feelings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

sounds like he was ruling based on "feelings" rather than "fact" and "law"

Trump...on the other hand....

The controlling provision of federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:

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.

sounds like the judge doesn't understand how the system works or how the law reads ...but this is what we've come to expect from so-called progressive justices is it not? Making decisions based on the desired policy result and not the law.

In theory, a judge could find that law you cited, to be unconstitutional. It doesn't sound like that was the case here, from Detbuch's post, it sure seems like the judge struck down the ban because he doesn't like it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ask these people

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

The states include New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.


and he's not a liberal Judge

Did you see the law that Scott posted? We have a 'supremacy clause' which says that federal law trumps state law. There is a federal law that gives the POTUS the authority to do exactly what Trump did, and I presume that law was signed by a president other than Donald Trump.

WDMSO, I don't doubt that a lot of people don't like this ban. Not liking it, and having the authority to disregard it, are not the same thing. I don't like paying my state income tax, it imposes severe hardship on my family, I could do a lot more for my kids if I didn't have to bear that burden. So can I declare my house a 'sanctuary' from the state income tax? Or can only liberals pick and choose which laws they feel like obeying, and which they feel like disregarding?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

in 2011 during the Supreme Court session the high court reversed or invalidated 19 out of 26 decisions reviewed from the 9th Circuit.

that's a pretty bad percentage for a Court/judges ruling based on "law" and not feelings

That alone, tells you unequivocally, what's happening in that 9th circuit (sometimes referred to as the 9th circus court of schlemeels). That court is a liberal activist group. When the Supreme Court (which is not a right wing entity) tells you that you got it wrong 73% of the time, that means you are a moron, and in this case, probably an azzhole.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ask these people

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

The massive regulations that the Federal bureaucracy pumps out every year inflict those types of "harms" and more on states, universities and medical institutions as well as every citizen and business in this country. Progressive jurisprudence has ruled that is just fine. Regulation, by its very nature, is "harmful" to someone or something. Government, by its very nature, is "harmful" to someone or something. As Scottw pointed out, the judge himself pointed out that "Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches."

His own words contradict what he has ruled. He has judged the wisdom of a policy promoted by the executive branch.

He has stated what the work of the court is not. I don't know if he has stated what the work of the court exactly is. But if the work of the court is to apply the law, and if law overrides feeling and personal desire, and the fact of the law is that the executive branch has constitutional power to promote a policy, which in this case it does under federal immigration law, then fact overrides feeling, and the Constitution does not give the court the power to override the law, regardless of how repugnant or "unwise" that law may be in the mind of the court. The Constitution gives, and only gives the Court the task of deciding if the policy resides in the executive branch's domain. Which in this case, it clearly does.

Of course, the 9th circuit is often a court of so-called "social justice" rather than a court of law.

[FishermanTim]

This is all well and good, but how does it relate to the original topic of Hollywood stars interjecting their will as a call to arms????

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

This is all well and good, but how does it relate to the original topic of Hollywood stars interjecting their will as a call to arms????

Someone used your thread as an occasion to rag on Trump, So some of us responded to him. Sorry.

As for Hollywood stars, when they use their fame to persuade us politically, and they speak with tiresome Party talking points, it disappoints me. To me, it makes them appear like political puppets, mouthing scripts, just as they do when they make movies. They lose their luster of being superior, above average, "stars," and they look like bit players. Hearing Meryl Streep, this icon of class and great talent just mouthing political nonsense takes the bloom off the rose for me. She just becomes another hack. So when I see her in a movie role, I no-longer maintain that willing suspension of disbelief required to make the fiction "real"--the mask loses its power to emotionally move me and she just becomes an actor memorizing lines. I lose interest in any move she is in.

Silverman, little as I know about her, is another level of celebrity activism. She's that radical, vulgar, pseudo-revolutionary type who is believable when she rants. I have no trouble believing that she is as disgusting as she appears.

But they all have the right to speak. And more power to them if they actually believe what they say. And even more so if they have an intelligent point of view, personally thought out and originally or uniquely delivered.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Someone used your thread as an occasion to rag on Trump, So some of us responded to him. Sorry.

Funny thing its wasn't me it was his defenders.. who didn't want to compare tweeting behavior .. we'll start a new thread

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny thing its wasn't me it was his defenders.. ..

you sound exactly like Trump

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny thing its wasn't me it was his defenders.. who didn't want to compare tweeting behavior .. we'll start a new thread

The thread didn't call for comparing tweeting behavior. It was commenting on the Hollywood "stars" who seek attention by calling for something like the overthrow of the government. You could have compared the tweeting behavior of anyone other than a Hollywood star and that wouldn't have been the gist of the topic. But, somehow (Trump Tourette's?) you chose Trump. And your comparison actually, if you look at the essence of the tweets, made Trump seem to be more rational and patriotic than Silverman. When you veered away from the topic of talking about Silverman and Hollywood stars (which you never did) and started ragging on Trump "his defenders" actually fleshed that out. They responded to the "new thread" YOU started.