Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Just knocking out FedSoc judges left and right.

For what, supporting the law?  

For what, supporting the law? 

There was a worry about a politicized judiciary. That’s their de facto mission. 

And if the goal is to insist that what the party want to do is legal, even if it wouldn’t be legal for the other party, well, I suppose that tells us a lot about where we are. 

Very happy to know that the astronauts are back safe. I hope they are OK long-term. 10 months in space is a long time.

An activist judge just sent them back to space.

The human nature in this thread makes me sad. So be it.

Are you the exception?  'Cuz otherwise, we've all just got opinions and introducing the Genetic Fallacy doesn't really get us anywhere.  

I mean what I said earlier about this being a strange hill to die on.  This has nothing to do with the legality of the issue, but one political group opened up the border in ways we've never seen, to effects we've never seen, and did so by a dereliction of duty to protect our borders.  Dereliction of duty is not following the law.  Now we get up in arms about the other party supposedly not following the law to undo the damage.  

K.

And that's assuming that the law is not being followed here--which as of yet, no one has convinced me.  

There was a worry about a politicized judiciary. That’s their de facto mission.

Their mission is explicitly anti-politicized judiciary.  They support interpreting the Constitution based on the usual standards of statutory interpretation rather than based on some vague notions of progressivism.  

For the non-lawyers here, I'll explain the issue:
When you go to law school you learn a host of rules of statutory and contractual interpretation, some examples are:

• The plain meaning rule - what is the plain meaning of the text?
• Intent of the drafters - what did the parties intend?  
• Construction against the drafter - This is why your insurance policy is 900 pages long.  There is a standard that says that if one side drafted the contract, any ambiguities are resolved against that party.  Thus, Insurance Companies (which draft their policies) end up making them 900 pages long in order to eliminate any ambiguities.  

For Conservatives (Federalist Society) these very same rules apply to the Constitution.  Originalists, we are called, because we assert that the Constitution should be interpreted as originally intended.  

This is where it gets very strange.  Liberals generally believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and thus that the normal rules of interpretation should not apply and instead the Constitution simply says whatever they want it to say.  Ie, they like to make it up as they go along.  

Making up new Constitution as they go along has gotten us into a whole lot of problems that would have been avoided if we had simply followed the law.  

Just curioius, what if members of ISIS or Al Qaeda were caught in this country, would they be eligible to be sent away via this same act?

Never done the research, but I wouldn't be surprised they used it to put people in guatomino (however you spell it)

That's the headscratching thing.  The Republicans finally grew enough of a pair once 80% of the country said they would pat them on the back, and the Democrats still said screw their constituents, and screw women in sports, we'll kill the bill anyway.  It was the easiest political win they're going to get for a while, and they wouldn't take it.  It won't happen, but I hope the majority of them get primaried next time around.  At least half of them don't even disagree with the bill as far as I can tell from their history, but they've reached a point where one side of the aisle--if not both--is happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.  Yay. 

That issue had wide bipartisan support.....everywhere but in Congress. 

This issue afflicts both sides.  The problems are insufficient participation in primaries and gerrymandered districts, allow me to explain with a couple examples:

Suppose that the country is 50/50 R/D.  Now suppose that 20% of the country is for an outright ban on abortion and another 20% is for open borders.  Further suppose that essentially all of those for an outright ban on abortion are R's and nearly all of those for open borders are D's.  

You would *THINK* that these people wouldn't be able to get their way because even if the 20% for an outright ban on abortion are all R's they still only make up 40% of R's so they *SHOULD* lose primaries 60-40.  Similarly, the 20% for open borders should lose Democratic Primaries 60-40.  Further, even if one of the R's for an outright ban on abortion snuck through the primary process somehow, they'd get slaughtered in the general election where this position is 80-20 unfavorable.  Similarly, if an open borders D snuck through the primary process they'd get slaughtered in the general election where this is a 80-20 unfavorable position.  

In practice it doesn't actually work this way.  Participation in primary elections is a fraction of participation in General Elections and, at least generally, those who are most likely to participate in primaries are those furthest toward the wings and furthest away from the center.  Consequently, in the Republican Primary electorate a position that only has 20% national support and only 40% R support may well have majority support.  Similarly, in the Democratic Primary electorate a position that only has 20% national support and only 40% D support may well have majority support.  

Then on to the general election.  Most Congresspeople have no real reason to fear losing a general election.  There are a few swing districts but these are, by far, the exception.  Realistically the biggest threat to a Congressperson's continuation in office is a Primary Challenge - FROM THE FRINGE of their own party.  Ie, Democrats are more likely to be taken out by a MORE leftist Democrat and Republicans are more likely to be taken out by a MORE rightest Republican than either are to be taken out by a more moderate member of the other party.  

This is the mental calculus behind Republican officeholders supporting severe restrictions on abortion that seem to have only token national support and it is also the mental calculus behind Democratic officeholders supporting men in women's sports and open borders.