Hawaii judge blocks Trumps ban

[zico20]

Another radical, leftist judge appointed by Obama has issued a ruling nationwide restricting his new executive order. Anything Trump does will get shot down by radicals who are hell bent on wiping out western culture.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-blocks-trumps-revised-travel-ban-1489618057

Here is a comment from the judge. Yea right, the judge does not give one damn about national security.

National security is unquestionably important to the public at
large. Plaintiffs and the public, on the other hand, have a vested interest in the “free
flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from
discrimination.”

http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/immigblock.pdf

[chadk66]

This won't shock anybody. Why the hell isn't Gorsuch seated and get this crap to the supreme court.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

This won't shock anybody. Why the hell isn't Gorsuch seated and get this crap to the supreme court.

Schumer, Pelosi, Franken, and the swamp.

I mean, when Maxine Waters is in some kind of political office since 1977, you know it is all broken. :puke:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Sounds to me like (1) the Trumpster could hire some better legal help and (2) if you read the decision, he was hoisted on his own petard. It seemed to me like the judge was saying, no matter what the executive order reads, it's pretty clear from all the Trump quotes available that this is a Muslim ban plain and simple.

Sometimes that gate between your brain and your mouth needs to slam shut before the words escape.

[garyscpa]

Sounds to me like (1) the Trumpster could hire some better legal help and (2) if you read the decision, he was hoisted on his own petard. It seemed to me like the judge was saying, no matter what the executive order reads, it's pretty clear from all the Trump quotes available that this is a Muslim ban plain and simple.

Sometimes that gate between your brain and your mouth needs to slam shut before the words escape.

Or between your brain and your keyboard.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Sounds to me like (1) the Trumpster could hire some better legal help and (2) if you read the decision, he was hoisted on his own petard. It seemed to me like the judge was saying, no matter what the executive order reads, it's pretty clear from all the Trump quotes available that this is a Muslim ban plain and simple.

Sometimes that gate between your brain and your mouth needs to slam shut before the words escape.

Like your Trump hating self, "slam shut".

Tell us the words that are "muslim" in the current ban. Without bias. Without stupidity. Please tell us all where it is "muslim" related.

[boxcar]

Sounds to me like (1) the Trumpster could hire some better legal help and (2) if you read the decision, he was hoisted on his own petard. It seemed to me like the judge was saying, no matter what the executive order reads, it's pretty clear from all the Trump quotes available that this is a Muslim ban plain and simple.

Sometimes that gate between your brain and your mouth needs to slam shut before the words escape.

If it were a "Muslim ban" how come Trump didn't ban the other 85% or so of Muslims from numerous other countries? (Never mind:Rhetorical question since most libs seem to have limited critical thinking skills.)

[zico20]

Who were the liberals on this board who said if it was done correctly it would stand. It will never stand, to many liberal judges are anti American, anti Christian, anti white, etc.

[zico20]

Like your Trump hating self, "slam shut".

Tell us the words that are "muslim" in the current ban. Without bias. Without stupidity. Please tell us all where it is "muslim" related.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not Christians in these 6 countries.

[Greyfox]

The Judge is a victim of "monkey see, monkey do."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Or between your brain and your keyboard.

You would know

[garyscpa]

You would know

Correct.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not Christians in these 6 countries.

The six countries have between 90% and 99% Muslims. The judge went into a detailed explanation about how that pretty much solidified the argument that this was essentially a Muslim ban. You could read the decision too, complete with previous court cases about why the governments argument doesn't hold water.

All I did was read the decision (that makes one of us) and tell you what it said. I never said yay for the Hawaiian judge. I explained some of the reasoning the judge used. Don't shoot the messenger.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Correct.

Hey, back off with the attack. Trump screwed himself by campaigning on a Muslim ban, which he ultimately changed to extreme vetting. All I did was point out that if you read the decision, Trump screwed himself by effectively saying, I'm going to discriminate against Muslims, multiple times. All I did was point out what the judge said in issuing the TRO.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The six countries have between 90% and 99% Muslims. The judge went into a detailed explanation about how that pretty much solidified the argument that this was essentially a Muslim ban. You could read the decision too, complete with previous court cases about why the governments argument doesn't hold water.

All I did was read the decision (that makes one of us) and tell you what it said. I never said yay for the Hawaiian judge. I explained some of the reasoning the judge used. Don't shoot the messenger.

How can he/you sit there straight-faced when former Prez Obama enforced a ban on the same countries?

Where was his "American" and equal rights shit then?

[garyscpa]

Hey, back off with the attack. Trump screwed himself by campaigning on a Muslim ban, which he ultimately changed to extreme vetting. All I did was point out that if you read the decision, Trump screwed himself by effectively saying, I'm going to discriminate against Muslims, multiple times. All I did was point out what the judge said in issuing the TRO.

I think you were the one who attacked another poster.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of protecting non-existent rights of foreign citizens when they can't be properly vetted.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

How can he/you sit there straight-faced when former Prez Obama enforced a ban on the same countries?

Where was his "American" and equal rights shit then?

Obama did not institute a ban. In fact, the flow of refugees continued during the review of immigration procedures related to refugees. If you want to google it you can read what he did for yourself. I'm not going to argue with you until you actual have the real facts as opposed to fake news. In fact, what Obama came up with was "extreme vetting," and he did it over a long series of vetting meetings with appropriate officials, as opposed to simply having White House staff draft it and present it to other officials as fait accompli. The procedures in place after the review were extremely tight, and it is unlikely once the current administration starts with "extreme vetting" they will come up with a review much tougher. You can criticize Obama for a lot of things, but he was tougher on immigration than the two guys before him.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Like your Trump hating self, "slam shut".

Tell us the words that are "muslim" in the current ban. Without bias. Without stupidity. Please tell us all where it is "muslim" related.

Read the freakin' decision and stop arguing about the stuff the court found to have no merit. The government made the same argument and it didn't fly. I didn't make the decision. A judge in Hawaii did. Attack him.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think you were the one who attacked another poster.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of protecting non-existent rights of foreign citizens when they can't be properly vetted.

I didn't quote anyone in my reply. I was saying Trump was the one that needed to slam the gate shut between his brain and his mouth, obviously because it was his own statements that the judge used to make the case it was a Muslim ban. If you took it otherwise, that was never my intent. Trump and Obama are legitimate targets as I read the posts.

[zico20]

The six countries have between 90% and 99% Muslims. The judge went into a detailed explanation about how that pretty much solidified the argument that this was essentially a Muslim ban. You could read the decision too, complete with previous court cases about why the governments argument doesn't hold water.

All I did was read the decision (that makes one of us) and tell you what it said. I never said yay for the Hawaiian judge. I explained some of the reasoning the judge used. Don't shoot the messenger.

If there are Christians in the country then it sure the hell can't be a Muslim ban, now can it. All people from those countries are banned, not just the Muslims.

[zico20]

I didn't quote anyone in my reply. I was saying Trump was the one that needed to slam the gate shut between his brain and his mouth, obviously because it was his own statements that the judge used to make the case it was a Muslim ban. If you took it otherwise, that was never my intent. Trump and Obama are legitimate targets as I read the posts.

So what you are saying is that a judge can find a quote from Trump when he was 18 and use that against him, brilliant.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Read the freakin' decision and stop arguing about the stuff the court found to have no merit. The government made the same argument and it didn't fly. I didn't make the decision. A judge in Hawaii did. Attack him.
You know the reality.

The Prez can call in any order, ANY order that is securing, or in the best interest of securing Americans. PERIOD.

Any BS that opposes that order is exactly that. BS. (Or in laymans terms, Non-Democratic in nature).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So what you are saying is that a judge can find a quote from Trump when he was 18 and use that against him, brilliant.

Why am I even interacting with people who don't have a clue what the judge said? All the quotes were from the campaign, the debates, or from his representatives like Giuliani. What the hell are you talking about finding a quote from when he was 18. You want to stay ignorant, keep ignoring what the judge said. Like I said. Stop acting like I wrote the decision.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If there are Christians in the country then it sure the hell can't be a Muslim ban, now can it. All people from those countries are banned, not just the Muslims.

You know, if you were a federal judge I'd think you have a point. But considering neither of us was qualified to argue the case, all we can do is read what the government argued, what Hawaii and one aggrieved individual argued, and what the judge said. I'm not going to read you why your argument, which was one of the government's arguments, didn't hold water. You want to know why the judge rejected it, read the order. You don't have to convince all the alt-right people here. They already buy the Executive Order. But if you could convince the judge he's wrong, now that would be an accomplishment.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You know the reality.

The Prez can call in any order, ANY order that is securing, or in the best interest of securing Americans. PERIOD.

Any BS that opposes that order is exactly that. BS. (Or in laymans terms, Non-Democratic in nature).

The president is subject to the rule of law and the constitution just like the other 330 million of us. I didn't just yank that out of thin air. That's been America for 240 years. It's called checks and balances.

There are three branches of government. One is the judicial branch. In anybody's terms, court review is exactly how democracy works. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Like I said, Trump might try getting some smarter lawyers. Like I said over and over, I didn't write the decision. But I did read it.

Don't mistake the president for Putin. Different country, different constitution.

[zico20]

Why am I even interacting with people who don't have a clue what the judge said? All the quotes were from the campaign, the debates, or from his representatives like Giuliani. What the hell are you talking about finding a quote from when he was 18. You want to stay ignorant, keep ignoring what the judge said. Like I said. Stop acting like I wrote the decision.

What the hell difference does it make if it was from the campaign trail, debates or he said it when he was 18. Is there a time limit on when a judge can use someones words against them. Is there?

Are you saying if Trump made these comments the day BEFORE he declared for presidency they are inadmissible but the day after he started his run for presidency they can be used against him? What the f**k kind of logic is that?

[zico20]

The president is subject to the rule of law and the constitution just like the other 330 million of us. I didn't just yank that out of thin air. That's been America for 240 years. It's called checks and balances.

There are three branches of government. One is the judicial branch. In anybody's terms, court review is exactly how democracy works. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Like I said, Trump might try getting some smarter lawyers. Like I said over and over, I didn't write the decision. But I did read it.

Don't mistake the president for Putin. Different country, different constitution.

Sorry, but Trump can get the best lawyers in the world, it would not matter. These judges are hell bent on stopping anything Trump does. If you can't see that then there is nothing anybody can do to help you.:bang:

[zico20]

Why am I even interacting with people who don't have a clue what the judge said? All the quotes were from the campaign, the debates, or from his representatives like Giuliani. What the hell are you talking about finding a quote from when he was 18. You want to stay ignorant, keep ignoring what the judge said. Like I said. Stop acting like I wrote the decision.

What I am saying is these liberal judges will do anything to stop Trump. If that means using Trumps words against him when he was 18 they will do it. If they are using his words against him from 6 months ago, why not 50 years ago. Is there a time limit on when a person's words do not matter in a court of law?

[OntheRail]

The six countries have between 90% and 99% Muslims. The judge went into a detailed explanation about how that pretty much solidified the argument that this was essentially a Muslim ban. You could read the decision too, complete with previous court cases about why the governments argument doesn't hold water.

All I did was read the decision (that makes one of us) and tell you what it said. I never said yay for the Hawaiian judge. I explained some of the reasoning the judge used. Don't shoot the messenger.

Why is it 90-99% Muslim .. cause they are killing or killed everyone that was not.

[OntheRail]

Why am I even interacting with people who don't have a clue what the judge said? All the quotes were from the campaign, the debates, or from his representatives like Giuliani. What the hell are you talking about finding a quote from when he was 18. You want to stay ignorant, keep ignoring what the judge said. Like I said. Stop acting like I wrote the decision.

Quotes from the candidate mean zip.... it's what's contained within the four corners of the order... this judge is overreaching and his written discussion is BS to the highest order. Non citizens do not have a right of unfettered access to enter the USA.
Liberal A-Holes make me want to :puke:

[NJ Stinks]

Why am I even interacting with people who don't have a clue what the judge said? All the quotes were from the campaign, the debates, or from his representatives like Giuliani. What the hell are you talking about finding a quote from when he was 18. You want to stay ignorant, keep ignoring what the judge said. Like I said. Stop acting like I wrote the decision.

I don't know how you can even bother with these guys. I give you credit for trying but I do wonder how long you will persevere.

The unstated truth here is that only a fool for a president would publicly attack individual federal judges. If for no other reason than to set an example for Americans everywhere on how to treat a person authorized to uphold the Constitution or federal statutes.

But DonnyBoy can't help himself. And that is pathetic.

[Clocker]

I find it ironic that an apparently liberal judge rejects an order because of his inference of the intent of the president based on his comments.

At the same time, liberal judges reject the idea of interpreting the Constitution based on the intent of the Founders as expressed in their comments.

[RunForTheRoses]

Hawaii should have never been made a state. The people are vehemently anti-American, anti the traditional American people. Google "Beat a Haole Day".

[newtothegame]

Speaking of Ironic......
Isn't it the liberals that claim the constitution is an outdated document that is in essence worthless?
I am almost positive, that one of the Supremes even went so far as to claim that one should look to South Africa or EU as a model (in reference to Egypt).
Now, when it suits the lefts agenda, we should use this outdated piece of paper that shouldn't be used ??????? :faint::faint:

[Fager Fan]

It isnt unconstitutional to ban immigration based on religion. They are not citizens, so don't have the rights of our constitution. Nor does banning a group based on religion qualify as a government establishment of religion. Finally, the Pres has always been given broad powers to allow into the country whoever he wants as a national security matter. This would lose if voted update n strictly by the constitution, but Dems have been successful in putting their biased liberals in the courts and schools, hence the results we're seeing.

[RunForTheRoses]

Hawaii should have never been made a state. The people are vehemently anti-American, anti the traditional American people. Google "Beat a Haole Day".



Or Maryland

[LottaKash]

I don't know how you can even bother with these guys. I.

What is with the "these guys"...???

Why is it always the left or the right thing, these guys, you guys crap..?

Where is the common sense, I ask..?

NJS, in case you or anyone else hasn't noticed these past few years here in the USA and around the world, and especially Europe these days, That there is an Unwritten Holy War going on even as I write this ... It is still game on..

And we do, constitutionally, have the right to exclude into this nation anyone who is suspected to be THAT ENEMY...

Heck, back in Wild West days, they made them check their guns in,at the head town, otherwise they couldn't get in....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What the hell difference does it make if it was from the campaign trail, debates or he said it when he was 18. Is there a time limit on when a judge can use someones words against them. Is there?

Are you saying if Trump made these comments the day BEFORE he declared for presidency they are inadmissible but the day after he started his run for presidency they can be used against him? What the f**k kind of logic is that?

Logic, unfortunately, is not a word I would apply to your response. The timing was only relevant inasmuch as the quotes were included by the judge. I never mentioned admissibility (an irrelevant point since the quotes were not subject to evidentiary rules). Once again, I provided you with a fact. YOU are the one who said something about finding quotes from when Trump was 18. All I did was tell you where the quotes came from, including before he was the nominee but was campaigning. Put down the pitchfork and axe handle for a moment, read the decision, and then if you want to criticize it, you'll at least have the same set of facts as everyone else.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Sorry, but Trump can get the best lawyers in the world, it would not matter. These judges are hell bent on stopping anything Trump does. If you can't see that then there is nothing anybody can do to help you.:bang:

Actually, if Trump had gotten the best lawyers in the world he might not have written an order that got rejected. If you can't see that then (1) you don't understand the difference between aces and hacks, and (2) there is nothing anybody can do to help you.

[chadk66]

I think you'll now see Gorsuch nuked in and this taken to the SCOTUS

[chadk66]

Trump needs to start slashing the budgets of these Judges.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Quotes from the candidate mean zip.... it's what's contained within the four corners of the order... this judge is overreaching and his written discussion is BS to the highest order. Non citizens do not have a right of unfettered access to enter the USA.
Liberal A-Holes make me want to :puke:

Quotes from the candidate gave us all a reason to vote for him or not. And the EO gives us a reason to believe he meant what he said. If the judge is overreaching the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will reverse the order.

You understand what the word unfettered means, right? They don't have unfettered access, they never had unfettered access, and the injunction didn't give them unfettered access.

How about you give American democracy a chance to work? Trump lost step 1. Long way to go before it's finally settled.

[tucker6]

Quotes from the candidate gave us all a reason to vote for him or not. And the EO gives us a reason to believe he meant what he said. If the judge is overreaching the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will reverse the order.

You understand what the word unfettered means, right? They don't have unfettered access, they never had unfettered access, and the injunction didn't give them unfettered access.

How about you give American democracy a chance to work? Trump lost step 1. Long way to go before it's finally settled.

Yes, let democracy work. Our democracy says that the executive branch has supremacy in foreign affairs, and no judge should counter it unless the executive action clearly falls outside the law. The new EO as written is perfectly legal. Even the judge didn't really say otherwise. His excuse for lifting the ban was because of past comments made by Trump, etc., i.e. I actually think I know what you are doing Mr President. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope? I mean really? No one can change their minds once they have actual intelligence on the matter and can make more informed decisions?

I believe that these actions by liberals may win a battle or two, but will ultimately lose them the war come election time. The liberals are acting exactly as Trump has stated they would, and while you may not believe it, the general public see it for what it is. I can see the campaign ads in 2018 and 2020 already.

[Greyfox]

Simply stated, it must be a wonderful feeling for anyone to say to him or herself :
"I over ruled the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world."
The Judge was "power tripping" and getting even for Trump's previous putdowns of the Judiciary.
Trump's previous comments about Muslims were simply an excuse especially when the vast majority of peoples from Muslim countries were not banned.

[woodtoo]

Quotes from the candidate gave us all a reason to vote for him or not. And the EO gives us a reason to believe he meant what he said. If the judge is overreaching the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will reverse the order.

You understand what the word unfettered means, right? They don't have unfettered access, they never had unfettered access, and the injunction didn't give them unfettered access.

How about you give American democracy a chance to work? Trump lost step 1. Long way to go before it's finally settled.
now your being just plain silly willy
you are no judge.....thankfully

[OntheRail]

Quotes from the candidate gave us all a reason to vote for him or not. And the EO gives us a reason to believe he meant what he said. If the judge is overreaching the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will reverse the order.

You understand what the word unfettered means, right? They don't have unfettered access, they never had unfettered access, and the injunction didn't give them unfettered access.

How about you give American democracy a chance to work? Trump lost step 1. Long way to go before it's finally settled.


Unfettered access...is that not the goal of the Liberal Loons? Hell Hillary said it on the Trail, she talked in favor of OPEN BORDERS.

I do support American Democracy... you seem to back Liberal Supremacy. Or you'd be outrage that a Judge read more into the EO then was written in it.

I could talk all day about selling a golden lump... how shinny it was and so forth. But when pen meet paper it's just a brown lump.... it's sign by authorized persons. It goes to court... any and all Judges are going to stand by what IS IN THE SIGNED DOCUMENT... not what was said prior or after the fact, if it's not in the document it never happened.

The Judge over reached.

[NJ Stinks]

What is with the "these guys"...???

Why is it always the left or the right thing, these guys, you guys crap..?

Where is the common sense, I ask..?

NJS, in case you or anyone else hasn't noticed these past few years here in the USA and around the world, and especially Europe these days, That there is an Unwritten Holy War going on even as I write this ... It is still game on..

And we do, constitutionally, have the right to exclude into this nation anyone who is suspected to be THAT ENEMY...

Heck, back in Wild West days, they made them check their guns in,at the head town, otherwise they couldn't get in....

Well, lets see some of what was said to HOH:

Or between your brain and your keyboard. That was Gary the accountant.
_______________

Like your Trump hating self, "slam shut".

Tell us the words that are "muslim" in the current ban. Without bias. Without stupidity. Please tell us all where it is "muslim" related. That was Lemon Drop Kid (the horse wants his name back).
_____________________

So what you are saying is that a judge can find a quote from Trump when he was 18 and use that against him, brilliant. Zico



The judge being right or wrong has nothing to do with HOH's posts or my post. The posters above chose to make it a left/right thing.

My point is simply that the president should not be lambasting individual federal judges at his silly pep rallys. It's low class or no class.

Probably both.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, if Trump had gotten the best lawyers in the world he might not have written an order that got rejected. If you can't see that then (1) you don't understand the difference between aces and hacks, and (2) there is nothing anybody can do to help you.What does it matter what the order says or who writes it? Apparently, all a judge needs to reject it is some choice comments uttered by Trump or whomever is connected to the order.

That doesn't sound quite right, now does it? Shouldn't the judge be ruling on what exactly is written in the order?

[woodtoo]

It's low class or no class.

Probably both.

The judge of course.

[boxcar]

The six countries have between 90% and 99% Muslims. The judge went into a detailed explanation about how that pretty much solidified the argument that this was essentially a Muslim ban. You could read the decision too, complete with previous court cases about why the governments argument doesn't hold water.

All I did was read the decision (that makes one of us) and tell you what it said. I never said yay for the Hawaiian judge. I explained some of the reasoning the judge used. Don't shoot the messenger.

And you buy into this judge's stupidity whole hog, right? That judge didn't happen to reveal to the unwashed masses (such as yourself) what percentage of the entire Muslim world those six countries represent, did he? I'm thinking not, since that figure would be embarrassingly low and wouldn't contribute very much to the Muslim bigotry narrative aimed at Trump.

[boxcar]

What does it matter what the order says or who writes it? Apparently, all a judge needs to reject it is some choice comments uttered by Trump or whomever is connected to the order.

That doesn't sound quite right, now does it? Shouldn't the judge be ruling on what exactly is written in the order?

Or more precisely, the judge should be judging the merits of the EO on the basis of the Constitution and the the governing 1995 statute passed by a Democrat congress. This is another excellent example of judge making up rules (law) from the bench. This is NOT what a judge is supposed to do.

[woodtoo]

It doesn't really matter folks he has already implemented "extreme vetting"
and there is nothing any judge can do to change this fact.
He probably made it extremely extreme now. The President will ensure your safety whether you like it or not.:headbanger:
You're only hope now is to move to one of the 5 countries in protest....any takers?

[JustRalph]

Quotes from the candidate gave us all a reason to vote for him or not. And the EO gives us a reason to believe he meant what he said. If the judge is overreaching the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will reverse the order.

You understand what the word unfettered means, right? They don't have unfettered access, they never had unfettered access, and the injunction didn't give them unfettered access.

How about you give American democracy a chance to work? Trump lost step 1. Long way to go before it's finally settled.


That's what they said about these guys. They aren't monitored nor are they vetted. We are the dumbest country on the planet when it comes to shit like this

[boxcar]

I don't know how you can even bother with these guys. I give you credit for trying but I do wonder how long you will persevere.

The unstated truth here is that only a fool for a president would publicly attack individual federal judges. If for no other reason than to set an example for Americans everywhere on how to treat a person authorized to uphold the Constitution or federal statutes.

But DonnyBoy can't help himself. And that is pathetic.

We have yet to see any judge involved with these last two EOs upholding the Constitution or the federal statutes. All these so-called judges should be impeached.

[PaceAdvantage]

The President will ensure your safety whether you like it or not.:headbanger:This is where I have to agree with some of our left-leaning friends and anti-Trumpers....the above smacks of devotion to "dear leader" that you'd read about in North Korea (although, admittedly, the people there are pretty much FORCED into devotion).

At least in the above case, it's 100% voluntary...but still reads similarly.

I'm fairly certain ALL presidents have tried to ensure the safety of the American people, whether we agreed with their methods or not.

[woodtoo]

This is where I have to agree with some of our left-leaning friends and anti-Trumpers....the above smacks of devotion to "dear leader" that you'd read about in North Korea (although, admittedly, the people there are pretty much FORCED into devotion).

At least in the above case, it's 100% voluntary...but still reads similarly.

I'm fairly certain ALL presidents have tried to ensure the safety of the American people, whether we agreed with their methods or not.

You are reading too much into my insignificant posts. Shame on you.:D

[boxcar]

the following portion of the governing statute that gives the Chief Executive of the U.S. broad powers over immigration? Here it is:

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.

Any liberal out there wanna take a whack at this? What part of "all", "any" and "class" is beyond human comprehension?

And you know who used to make proclamations back in bygone eras? It was Kings or Queens! Sovereign Monarchs! So, it appears that Congress ( Democrat-controlled no less at the time!) has given the president of these United States very broad, sweeping monarch-like powers in matters of immigration by conferring on him the power of unilateral proclamation.

NJ, Hanky, Mostypostie, Barona, anyone? I would dearly love for our resident Einstein to render his interpretation for us, but he has me on iggy. His loss, though...because he could stand to learn very much from any or all critical-thinking conservatives.

[Clocker]

What does it matter what the order says or who writes it? Apparently, all a judge needs to reject it is some choice comments uttered by Trump or whomever is connected to the order.

That doesn't sound quite right, now does it? Shouldn't the judge be ruling on what exactly is written in the order?

Welcome to the brave new world of the Thought Police, where your intention is as important, and as offensive, as your action. I'm surprised the judge didn't find Trump guilty of a "Hate Crime"!

[tucker6]

That's what they said about these guys. They aren't monitored nor are they vetted. We are the dumbest country on the planet when it comes to shit like this

actually Germany is dumber, although your point is well taken.

[mostpost]

Below is a list of every Executive Order issued under the authority of the 1952 INA from Reagan through Obama. Every one of the, without exception, refers to a specific group of individuals and/or to individuals engaged in a specific type of conduct.

Government officials are mentioned, not the citizens of a country. EO's refer to political groups, not members of a religion.
Specified actions by specific persons trigger a ban in all cases below, not where someone is from.

Trump bans Muslims because they are Muslims, not because of any substantive reason. His ban violates the establishment clause of the first amendment and will be overturned even by this Supreme Court.


2016, Apr. 21 – Obama
Executive Order 13726, 81 Fed.
Reg. 23559
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, or stability” of that country or may lead to or result in the misappropriation of Libyan state assets)

2016, Mar. 18 – Obama
Executive Order 13722, 81 Fed.
Reg. 14943
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving North
Korea (e.g., selling or purchasing metal, graphite, coal, or software directly or
indirectly to or from North Korea, or to persons acting for or on behalf of the
North Korean government or the Workers’ Party of Korea)

2015, Nov. 25 – Obama
Executive Order 13712, 80 Fed.
Reg. 73633
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Burundi” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, or stability of Burundi,” or “undermine democratic processes or
institutions” in that country)

2015, Apr. 2 – Obama
Executive Order 13694, 80 Fed.
Reg. 18077 (later amended by
Executive Order 13757, 82 Fed.
Reg. 1 (Jan. 3, 2017))
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in “significant malicious cyber-enabled
activities” (e.g., harming or significantly compromising the provision of services by a
computer or computer network that supports an entity in a critical infrastructure
sector)

2015, Mar. 11 – Obama
Executive Order 13692, 80 Fed.
Reg. 12747
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Venezuela” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in actions or policies that undermine democratic
processes or institutions, significant acts of violence or conduct that constitutes a
serious abuse or violation of human rights)

2015, Jan. 6 – Obama
Executive Order 13687, 80 Fed.
Reg. 819
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens with specified connections to North Korea (e.g., officials of the North
Korean government or the Workers’ Party of Korea)

2014, Dec. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13685, 79 Fed.
Reg. 77357
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving the
Crimea region of Ukraine (e.g., materially assisting, sponsoring, or providing
financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in
support of, persons whose property or interests are blocked pursuant to the
order)

2014, May 15 – Obama
Executive Order 13667, 79 Fed.
Reg. 28387
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have contributed to the conflict in the Central
African Republic in specified ways (e.g., engaging in actions or policies that threaten
the peace, security, or stability of that country, or that threaten transitional
agreements or the political transition process)

2014, Apr. 7 – Obama
Executive Order 13664, 79 Fed.
Reg. 19283
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain conduct as to South Sudan
(e.g., actions or policies that “have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending
the conflict” in that country, or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or
processes)

2014, Mar. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13662, 79 Fed.
Reg. 16169
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in
specified ways (e.g., operating in the financial services, energy, metals and mining,
engineering, or defense and related materiel sectors of the Russian Federation
economy)

2014, Mar. 19 – Obama
Executive Order 13661, 79 Fed.
Reg. 15535
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in specified ways
(e.g., officials of the government of the Russian Federation, or persons who
operate in the arms or related materiel sector)

2014, Mar. 10 – Obama
Executive Order 13660, 79 Fed.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in specified ways
(e.g., engagement in or responsibility for misappropriation of state assets of
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Congressional Research Service 8
Date & President Nature of the Exclusion
Reg. 13493 Ukraine or of economically significant entities in that country)

2013, June 5 – Obama
Executive Order 13645, 78 Fed.
Reg. 33945
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who have engaged in certain conduct related to Iran (e.g., materially assisting,
sponsoring, or providing support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any
Iranian person included on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked
Persons)

2012, Oct. 12 – Obama
Executive Order 13628, 77 Fed.
Reg. 62139
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain actions involving Iran (e.g.,
knowingly transferring or facilitating the transfer of goods or technologies to Iran,
to entities organized under Iranian law or subject to Iranian jurisdiction, or to
Iranian nationals, that are likely to be used by the Iranian government to commit
serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people)

2012, July 13 – Obama
Executive Order 13619, 77 Fed.
Reg. 41243
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma in
specified ways (e.g., participation in the commission of human rights abuses, or
importing or exporting arms or related materiel to or from North Korea)

2012, May 3 – Obama
Executive Order 13608, 77 Fed.
Reg. 26409
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain conduct as to Iran and Syria
(e.g., facilitating deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject to
U.S. sanctions concerning Iran and Syria)

2012, Apr. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13606, 77 Fed.
Reg. 24571
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have engaged in specified conduct involving “grave human
rights abuses by the governments of Iran and Syria via information technology”
(e.g., operating or directing the operation of communications technology that
facilitates computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could
assist or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of these governments)

2011, Aug. 9 – Obama
Proclamation 8697, 76 Fed. Reg.
49277
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who participate in serious human rights and humanitarian law violations and
other abuses (e.g., planning, ordering, assisting, aiding and abetting, committing, or
otherwise participating in “widespread or systemic violence against any civilian
population” based, in whole or in part, on race, color, descent, sex, disability,
language, religion, ethnicity, birth, political opinion, national origin, membership in a
particular social group, membership in an indigenous group, or sexual orientation
or gender identity)

2011, July 27 – Obama
Proclamation 8693, 76 Fed. Reg.
44751
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens subject to U.N. Security Council travel bans and International Emergency
Economic Powers Act sanctions

2009, Jan. 22 – Bush
Proclamation 8342, 74 Fed. Reg.
4093
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
foreign government officials responsible for failing to combat trafficking in persons

2007, July 3 – Bush
Proclamation 8158, 72 Fed. Reg.
36587
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for policies or actions that threaten Lebanon’s sovereignty and
democracy (e.g., current or former Lebanese government officials and private
persons who “deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon’s sovereignty”)

2006, May 16 – Bush
Proclamation 8015, 71 Fed. Reg.
28541
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for policies or actions that threaten the transition to
democracy in Belarus (e.g., Members of the government of Alyaksandr Lukashenka
and other persons involved in policies or actions that “undermine or injure
democratic institutions or impede the transition to democracy in Belarus”)

2004, Jan. 14 – Bush
Proclamation 7750, 69 Fed. Reg.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who have engaged in or benefitted from corruption in specified ways (e.g.,
current or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of articles of2287 monetary value or other benefits has or had “serious adverse effects on the
national interests of the United States”)

2002, Feb. 26 – Bush
Proclamation 7524, 67 Fed. Reg.
8857
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for actions that threaten Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions
and transition to a multi-party democracy (e.g., Senior members of the government
of Robert Mugabe, persons who through their business dealings with Zimbabwe
government officials derive significant financial benefit from policies that undermine
or injure Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions)

2001, June 29 – Bush
Proclamation 7452, 66 Fed. Reg.
34775
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for actions that threaten international stabilization efforts in
the Western Balkans, or are responsible for wartime atrocities in that region

2000, Oct. 13 – Clinton
Proclamation 7359, 65 Fed. Reg.
60831
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who plan, engage in, or benefit from activities that support the Revolutionary
United Front or otherwise impede the peace process in Sierra Leone

1999, Nov. 17 – Clinton
Proclamation 7249, 64 Fed. Reg.
62561
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens responsible for repression of the civilian population in Kosovo or policies
that obstruct democracy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) or otherwise
lend support to the government of the FRY and the Republic of Serbia

1998, Jan. 16 – Clinton
Proclamation 7062, 63 Fed. Reg.
2871
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
members of the military junta in Sierra Leone and their family

1997, Dec. 16 – Clinton
Proclamation 7060, 62 Fed. Reg.
65987
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
senior officials of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
(UNITA) and adult members of their immediate families

1996, Nov. 26 – Clinton
Proclamation 6958, 61 Fed. Reg.
60007
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
members of the government of Sudan, officials of that country, and members of
the Sudanese armed forces

1996, Oct. 7 – Clinton
Proclamation 6925, 61 Fed. Reg.
52233
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who “formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Burma’s
transition to democracy” and their immediate family members

1994, Oct. 27 – Clinton
Proclamation 6749, 59 Fed. Reg.
54117
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
certain aliens described in U.N. Security Council Resolution 942 (e.g., officers of
the Bosnian Serb military and paramilitary forces and those acting on their behalf,
or persons found to have provided financial, material, logistical, military, or other
tangible support to Bosnian Serb forces in violation of relevant U.S. Security
Council resolutions)

1994, Oct. 5 – Clinton
Proclamation 6730, 59 Fed. Reg.
50683
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Liberia’s
transition to democracy and their immediate family

1994, May 10 – Clinton
Proclamation 6685, 59 Fed. Reg.
24337
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens described in U.N. Security Council Resolution 917 (e.g., officers of the
Haitian military, including the police, and their immediate families; major
participants in the 1991 Haitian coup d’etat)

1993, Dec. 14 – Clinton
Proclamation 6636, 58 Fed. Reg.
65525
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Nigeria’s
transition to democracy and their immediate family

1993, June 23 – Clinton
Proclamation 6574, 58 Fed. Reg.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who formulate or benefit from policies that impede Zaire’s transition to
democracy and their immediate family

34209
1993, June 7 – Clinton
Proclamation 6569, 58 Fed. Reg.
31897
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede the
progress of negotiations to restore a constitutional government to Haiti and their
immediate family
1992, June 1 – Bush

Executive Order 12807, 57 Fed.
Reg. 23133
Making provisions to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens
by sea and the interdiction of any covered vessel carrying such aliens
1988, Oct. 26 – Reagan

Proclamation 5887, 53 Fed. Reg.
43184
Suspending the entry of specified Nicaraguan nationals into the United States as
nonimmigrants (e.g., officers of the Nicaraguan government or the Sandinista
National Liberation Front holding diplomatic or official passports)

1988, June 14 – Reagan
Proclamation 5829, 53 Fed. Reg.
22289
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
certain Panamanian nationals who formulate or implement the policies Manuel
Antonio Noriega and Manuel Solis Palma, and their immediate families

1986, Aug. 26 – Reagan
Proclamation 5517, 51 Fed. Reg.
30470
Suspending the entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants with certain specified
exceptions (e.g., Cuban nationals applying for admission as immediate relatives
under INA § 201(b))

1985, Oct. 10 – Reagan
Proclamation 5377, 50 Fed. Reg.
41329
Suspending the entry of specified classes of Cuban nationals as nonimmigrants (e.g.,
officers or employees of the Cuban government or the Communist Party of Cuba
holding diplomatic or official passports)

1981, Oct. 1 – Reagan
Proclamation 4865, 46 Fed. Reg.
48107
Suspending the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas, and directing the
interdiction of certain vessels carrying such aliens

[tucker6]

So what Mostie

[OntheRail]

Trump bans Muslims because they are Muslims, not because of any substantive reason. His ban violates the establishment clause of the first amendment and will be overturned even by this Supreme Court.
BS... MoPo your eyes must be brown... cause your full of crap.
The EO doesn't mention Muslims, it speaks of six Nations States halting for a specific time frame enters of all peoples from said places... giving time to enhances verification standards.

It violates zip. Like I said liberals just make one want to...:puke:

[boxcar]

So what Mostie

I'll second Tucker's question, Mr Mosty. What does your list prove? DOES THE STATUTE REQUIRE THAT THE PRESIDENT LIST SPECIFIC PEOPLE OR STATE SPECIFIC REASONS? Are these requirements written somewhere into the law? Show me. Your list is irrelevant because it's a non sequitur. Honest judicial rulings should be made on the SUBSTANCE of the law.. Period! And we know this wasn't the case. Heck, our resident genius unwittingly admitted this himself! He applauded the judge's ruling on the basis of some alleged remarks Trump or his campaign made prior to the election. And this excuse does not find any substance in the law!

And I'll take this another step further. Let's do a hypothetical. If Obama had written these EOs, no one would have contested it.. But let's say someone did. According to this Hawiian judge's logic and (and our beloved Einstein's as well), the judge would have had to let the EO stand. He would have found it to be legal because he would never have found an instance in which Obama ever made a disparaging remark about Muslims. But where in the statute does it state that a president must think this way or that way about the people of the nations he wants to ban from coming into the country? Where does it state this? Therefore, as stated earlier, no ruling has ever been rendered on these EOs on the substance the governing law with respect to these EO, despite what NJ claims.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Unfettered access...is that not the goal of the Liberal Loons? Hell Hillary said it on the Trail, she talked in favor of OPEN BORDERS.

I do support American Democracy... you seem to back Liberal Supremacy. Or you'd be outrage that a Judge read more into the EO then was written in it.

I could talk all day about selling a golden lump... how shinny it was and so forth. But when pen meet paper it's just a brown lump.... it's sign by authorized persons. It goes to court... any and all Judges are going to stand by what IS IN THE SIGNED DOCUMENT... not what was said prior or after the fact, if it's not in the document it never happened.

The Judge over reached.
No, if it is the goal of anyone, it is an extremely small minority. If Hillary said it, produce the quote. On second thought, it's a waste of time to try to get to the truth. You're emotional about Hillary and you could care less what her position actually was. Back up BS by producing a statement from Hillary where she uses the phrase "open borders."

What I said is that if the judge is wrong, he'll eventually get struck down. How is that liberal supremacy? Never mind. How you can get from let the process work as the framers of the Constitution intended to liberal supremacy takes a thinking process Freud could spend a lifetime trying to figure out. I never once defended the judge's order. I never said I agreed or disagreed with it. I simply repeated what the order said.

In the meantime, emigrating to the U.S. is still extremely difficult. We are as safe after the restraining order as we were before. Nothing about how we do security and immigration has changed. Nobody is going to rush the border because the rules are still in effect.

Meanwhile, whatever it is Trump was going to do during the 90 day ban, he can still do it. In fact, that would be a productive use of his time. Let's see what he has up his sleeve to really make America safer.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What does it matter what the order says or who writes it? Apparently, all a judge needs to reject it is some choice comments uttered by Trump or whomever is connected to the order.

That doesn't sound quite right, now does it? Shouldn't the judge be ruling on what exactly is written in the order?

Two judges came to the same conclusion. Two others might completely disagree. Same point. Let the process play out. 8 (or 9 if Gorsuch gets approved) highly qualified people will eventually make the decision.

You know, it's like some of those courtroom dramas. "Didn't you threaten to kill him?" That's relevant evidence.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You are reading too much into my insignificant posts. Shame on you.:D

Something no one could ever accuse you of!

[OntheRail]

No, if it is the goal of anyone, it is an extremely small minority. If Hillary said it, produce the quote. On second thought, it's a waste of time to try to get to the truth. You're emotional about Hillary and you could care less what her position actually was. Back up BS by producing a statement from Hillary where she uses the phrase "open borders." e

Oct 07, 2016 · Hillary Clinton in 2013 said she dreams of a “common market with open trade and open borders,”
http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/hillarys-open-borders-dream-is-a-nightmare-for-workers/
Just a couple from the several thousand out on the net.
Google it if you dare....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/hillarys-open-borders-dream-is-a-nightmare-for-workers/
Just a couple from the several thousand out on the net.
Google it if you dare....

We all have dreams. They aren't the same as policy. I dream of walking through walking through West Englewood in Chicago knowing I will be perfectly safe. Doesn't mean I'm going to do it anytime soon.

[mostpost]

So what Mostie
If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.

[OntheRail]

We all have dreams. They aren't the same as policy. I dream of walking through walking through West Englewood in Chicago knowing I will be perfectly safe. Doesn't mean I'm going to do it anytime soon.
Ah the twist and shout ... but She said it... none the less.

And thank God that's all Hillary can do at this point. But if the Machine had functioned as planned... it could've been turned into policy. And not a peep from these liberal judges would of been heard.

[mostpost]

BS... MoPo your eyes must be brown... cause your full of crap.
The EO doesn't mention Muslims, it speaks of six Nations States halting for a specific time frame enters of all peoples from said places... giving time to enhances verification standards.

It violates zip. Like I said liberals just make one want to...:puke:

Section 212 of the INA 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.6

Every previous president has chosen to interpret this section narrowly. In fact, Truman vetoed the legislation. It was passed over his veto during the Red scare years. It is very poorly written. If you wanted to, you could use section 212 to prohibit entry from Australia to the US after an attack from Syria.

There have been few rulings from the courts on the INA of 1952 and none on circumstances such as we have now.

[boxcar]

Two judges came to the same conclusion.

Oh...I got it now. Two wrongs make a right. Or two leftist political hacks in black robes = brilliance. :lol::lol:

[boxcar]

Section 212 of the INA 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.6

Every previous president has chosen to interpret this section narrowly. In fact, Truman vetoed the legislation. It was passed over his veto during the Red scare years. It is very poorly written. If you wanted to, you could use section 212 to prohibit entry from Australia to the US after an attack from Syria.

There have been few rulings from the courts on the INA of 1952 and none on circumstances such as we have now.

Yeah...there is a very good reason for this: The statute was deliberately written to give the president of the U.S. sole authority over immigration matters.

And who cares what previous presidents have done? All previous presidents were politicians. Trump isn't. He's a successful businessman with a lot of common sense.

And finally, where does it say in the law that a president must follow the examples of previous presidents' EO with respect to immigration.

You see...this is what you liberals do. You make stuff up as you go along and then if you're a political hack liberal judge, couch the horse manure in legal terms to make it sound good -- all while fastidiously avoiding making a a genuine ruling on the substance of the law itself.

[Clocker]

So what Mostie

So he's got nothing. The similarity of some number of legal EOs does not establish precedent that an EO that is not similar is therefore not legal.

[delayjf]

MostPost,

The problem is that no matter how the EO is worded or to whom it specifically applies to - it just doesn't matter because with regards to immigration, this Judge would view any EO from Trump as a de facto discrimination against Muslims.

Interesting concept. I wonder why this Liberal Judge doesn't rule against Congress and the President for the unconstitutional targeting of Muslims via drone attacks.

[Clocker]

MostPost,

The problem is that no matter how the EO is worded or to whom it specifically applies to - it just doesn't matter because with regards to immigration, this Judge would view any EO from Trump as a de facto discrimination against Muslims.

Sadly, that appears to be true.



Trump said the temporary travel restriction was needed for national security. In issuing his temporary restraining order, Watson said Trump’s order was a result of nothing more than religious animus against Muslims. The judge’s order is predicated on what he thinks Trump wants to do, not the order itself.

Throughout the ruling, Judge Watson concedes there’s nothing about the executive order that would be problematic if not for his interpretation of Trump’s statements made in the months and years prior to issuing it. He repeatedly states his feeling that Trump had a bad motive in issuing the order.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/16/5-problems-with-hawaii-judges-halting-trumps-travel-ban/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/16/5-problems-with-hawaii-judges-halting-trumps-travel-ban/)

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The president is subject to the rule of law and the constitution just like the other 330 million of us. I didn't just yank that out of thin air. That's been America for 240 years. It's called checks and balances.

There are three branches of government. One is the judicial branch. In anybody's terms, court review is exactly how democracy works. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Like I said, Trump might try getting some smarter lawyers. Like I said over and over, I didn't write the decision. But I did read it.

Don't mistake the president for Putin. Different country, different constitution.


NY Times. Surely you'll agree with this article, am I right?

https://newrepublic.com/article/118951/obamas-immigration-policy-lawful-he-can-enforce-what-he-wants

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/the-constitutional-authority-for-executive-orders-on-immigration-is-clear

[chadk66]

This ruling out of Hawaii certainly shouldn't surprise anybody considering the Judge was a classmate of Obama's at Harvard and resides in Obama's home state :pound:

[boxcar]

This ruling out of Hawaii certainly shouldn't surprise anybody considering the Judge was a classmate of Obama's at Harvard and resides in Obama's home state :pound:

And he was appointed by Obama. Just another black robe political hack.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

NY Times. Surely you'll agree with this article, am I right?

https://newrepublic.com/article/118951/obamas-immigration-policy-lawful-he-can-enforce-what-he-wants

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/the-constitutional-authority-for-executive-orders-on-immigration-is-clear

Of course I agree with the articles. And of course they have nothing to do with the court case. You are conflating the authority of the president to determine the resource level he chooses to put into execution of federal laws with his authority to publish an executive order that doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Trump lost the court case not based on his authority to enforce immigration policy, but whether the executive order met constitutional mandates. If you read the decision, it never suggests the president didn't have to right to control immigration or issue executive orders or not choose to spend the appropriation on one aspect of the immigration law instead of another. What the court said was that it amounted to a religious ban. I never said it was genius judicial work, just that was the reasoning of the court.

As I've repeated over and over, eventually the Supreme Court will determine if the order met the constitutional mandate.

Two interesting articles that are not pertinent to the decision of the court.

[Tom]

:pSounds to me like (1) the Trumpster could hire some better legal help and (2) if you read the decision, he was hoisted on his own petard. It seemed to me like the judge was saying, no matter what the executive order reads, it's pretty clear from all the Trump quotes available that this is a Muslim ban plain and simple.

Sometimes that gate between your brain and your mouth needs to slam shut before the words escape.

Both judges obviously are legislating fro the bench.
Whatever he said, that is not the issue here. the only factors that should be considered are what the order says. He is 100% within the law in doing this. The judge here went to college with OBama and is a close friend of the POS. The judge needs to be removed fro the bench.

Trump's next move should be to ban ALL immigration from every country for 90 days.

[Tom]

I think you were the one who attacked another poster.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of protecting non-existent rights of foreign citizens when they can't be properly vetted.

Democrats would rather admit terrorist than see Trump accomplish anything. Remember, democrats are NOT American.

[Tom]

So what you are saying is that a judge can find a quote from Trump when he was 18 and use that against him, brilliant.

That is how the left works.

[Tom]

Trump needs to start slashing the budgets of these Judges.

The time is right to gerrymander the 9th Circus Court out of existence.

Drain the swamp. Attack the hive.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

:p

Both judges obviously are legislating fro the bench.

Whatever he said, that is not the issue here. the only factors that should be considered are what the order says. He is 100% within the law in doing this. The judge here went to college with OBama and is a close friend of the POS. The judge needs to be removed fro the bench.

Trump's next move should be to ban ALL immigration from every country for 90 days.

You know, I was going to tell you that the first two sentences in the second paragraph were the most cogent argument I've ever seen you make. You had me right up until the last sentence exposed over-the-edge Tom.

[Tom]

I'm fairly certain ALL presidents have tried to ensure the safety of the American people, whether we agreed with their methods or not.

Here's where we disagree. the last 8 years, the pospotus did everything he could to jeopardize our safety. All the Kenyan Kommandante did was put down America, it's citizens and it's accomplishments. If I have to eat healthy and exercise every day, I will one day dance and piss on his grave.

Obama is no better than half the terrorists in GITMO, and that is where his worthless arse belongs today.

[Tom]

You know, it's like some of those courtroom dramas. "Didn't you threaten to kill him?" That's relevant evidence.

Evidence is not relevant in this case. All that matters is the bill legal under the laws and the constitution. It is 100% that.
Nothing else is relevant.

[OntheRail]

Trump lost the court case not based on his authority to enforce immigration policy, but whether the executive order met constitutional mandates.

You know that statement... is false. The Judge said as much and you know even if you'll not admit it.

The order was given the thumbs down by a bias political hack in a black gown... not a Jurist with the desire to rule on the Merits of the EO in and of itself based on the Constitutionality of it. As he had swore to do.

[Tom]

The order was considered completely legal.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You know that statement... is false. The Judge said as much and you know even if you'll not admit it.

The order was given the thumbs down by a bias political hack in a black gown... not a Jurist with the desire to rule on the Merits of the EO in and of itself based on the Constitutionality of it. As he had swore to do.

Here is what I know because the judge said this:

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

What was false about the statement? Trump didn't lose based in his authority to regulate immigration, so he must have lost based on a constitutional argument. But if you want to split hairs, the judge concluded the injunction was warranted because he believed the plaintiffs would prevail on constitutional grounds, specifically the EO violated First Amendment rights. Ipso facto, the judge must have believed the EO was not going to meet constitutional mandates.

You can believe whatever you want about the judge, and maybe you are right. But, he said what he said in writing and it is too late to rewrite that injunction.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Evidence is not relevant in this case. All that matters is the bill legal under the laws and the constitution. It is 100% that.
Nothing else is relevant.

From the decision.

When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO.

The opinion on evidence is apparently not shared universally.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Of course I agree with the articles. And of course they have nothing to do with the court case. You are conflating the authority of the president to determine the resource level he chooses to put into execution of federal laws with his authority to publish an executive order that doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Trump lost the court case not based on his authority to enforce immigration policy, but whether the executive order met constitutional mandates. If you read the decision, it never suggests the president didn't have to right to control immigration or issue executive orders or not choose to spend the appropriation on one aspect of the immigration law instead of another. What the court said was that it amounted to a religious ban. I never said it was genius judicial work, just that was the reasoning of the court.

As I've repeated over and over, eventually the Supreme Court will determine if the order met the constitutional mandate.

Two interesting articles that are not pertinent to the decision of the court.

So...., Obama can do whatever he wants, and Trump can't do what is his executive right.

Got it.

Case solved as far as the 9th circuit court and lefties are concerned. :lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So...., Obama can do whatever he wants, and Trump can't do what is his executive right.

Got it.

Case solved as far as the 9th circuit court and lefties are concerned. :lol:

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Actually, what I would have said if I was saying was, Obama was a lot smarter about how he wrote his EO's, although he had them overturned too. You know why he was smarter? He vetted them through the lawyers and the cabinet agencies. Instead of having a thin skin or delusions of omniscience, he let everybody take a shot at them, so that by the time they were completed they had a better chance of holding up if they were challenged. Trump is not the emperor. He is one of 330 million Americans and no matter what you think of him, he is governed by the same constitution the rest of us are. Let's call a spade a spade. He screwed up six ways from Sunday, he got nabbed, and now he is depending on people like you to act like he was just doing a job and got punished by the maniac left. You know, in almost anything in life, there is a smart way and a dumb way. A good trick to learn is to recognize both.

Here's a big difference between me and you. I know Obama did some dumb stuff and I'm fine admitting it. I never supported Obama straight down the line, not here and not anywhere else, and I'll tell you that anybody who supports a politician straight down the line is mistaking that politician for Jesus. Trump is no exception. But there is a big difference between process and outcome, and when it came to process, Obama makes Trump look like exactly what he is - a Double-A player trying to bat clean-up in the majors.

[OntheRail]

Here is what I know because the judge said this:

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

What was false about the statement? Trump didn't lose based in his authority to regulate immigration, so he must have lost based on a constitutional argument. But if you want to split hairs, the judge concluded the injunction was warranted because he believed the plaintiffs would prevail on constitutional grounds, specifically the EO violated First Amendment rights. Ipso facto, the judge must have believed the EO was not going to meet constitutional mandates.

You can believe whatever you want about the judge, and maybe you are right. But, he said what he said in writing and it is too late to rewrite that injunction.

Bullshit on a biscuit... Our Constitutions does not extend beyond our Border... nor apply to Non US Citizens of and in a foreign land. I does however give the President authority on who may come into the Country.

The Judges are acting as a Political Operative... plain and simple.

[Fager Fan]

I don't feel like wading thru more posts. Again, for the umpteenth time, it is NOT ILLEGAL to ban immigrants due to their religion. Show it to us in the Constitution. You won't be able to find it, because it ain't there. Just because we've let activist judges over the past decade get away with butchering the Constitution doesn't mean they were right in their interpretation.

The sky is blue means that the sky is blue. It doesn't mean that the sky is discriminating against all the other colors and therefore the sky is really the color of a rainbow.

This crap is what we get when we didn't fight all the challenges to the Establishment clause and let liberal loons define it according to their political ideology.

[chadk66]

The time is right to gerrymander the 9th Circus Court out of existence.

Drain the swamp. Attack the hive.exactly. and that is going to happen

[chadk66]

It doesn't take much of an IQ to know that Trumps ban was 100% within his authority. Admitting it seems to be the issue.:bang:

[boxcar]

From the decision.

When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO.

The opinion on evidence is apparently not shared universally.

The quote above proves beyond any doubt that this judge overstepped the bounds of his authority. The Judicial Branch of the U.S. government has no authority whatsoever in making entry policies for aliens into the U.S. The Judicial branch does not get to partner up with the Executive branch to make such policy. That authority is vested solely in the President. In other words, the Judicial branch has no say in determining the nature of any evidence or motives of the Executive branch in matter of immigration policy. One will be very hard-pressed to find any authority given to the Judicial branch in either the Constitution or in the governing immigration statute. It's abundantly clear, therefore, that this activist leftist political black robe hack, violated the separation of powers doctrine that is stated in the Constitution. And this doctrine is there for the express purpose to prevent the abuse of power by any branch of the U.S. government -- something this judge doesn't understand or doesn't agree with. No branch has any authority to usurp the constitutionally-ordained powers of another branch. What happened with this ruling would be analogous to the president drafting up legislation and then signing it into law, completely bypassing Congress. Would anyone think that such an act would not be unlawful? Likewise, this activist judge bypassed the Executive branch with his unlawful ruling.

[boxcar]

Bullshit on a biscuit... Our Constitutions does not extend beyond our Border... nor apply to Non US Citizens of and in a foreign land. I does however give the President authority on who may come into the Country.

The Judges are acting as a Political Operative... plain and simple.

And there have been Supreme Court rulings to this effect to support what you have just said! If aliens have all the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution, this must mean they automatically have a protected right to vote in any and all elections. It must mean they also have the protected Second Amendment right given to U.S. citizens, etc.

[boxcar]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Actually, what I would have said if I was saying was, Obama was a lot smarter about how he wrote his EO's, although he had them overturned too. You know why he was smarter? He vetted them through the lawyers and the cabinet agencies. Instead of having a thin skin or delusions of omniscience, he let everybody take a shot at them, so that by the time they were completed they had a better chance of holding up if they were challenged. Trump is not the emperor. He is one of 330 million Americans and no matter what you think of him, he is governed by the same constitution the rest of us are. Let's call a spade a spade. He screwed up six ways from Sunday, he got nabbed, and now he is depending on people like you to act like he was just doing a job and got punished by the maniac left. You know, in almost anything in life, there is a smart way and a dumb way. A good trick to learn is to recognize both.

Here's a big difference between me and you. I know Obama did some dumb stuff and I'm fine admitting it. I never supported Obama straight down the line, not here and not anywhere else, and I'll tell you that anybody who supports a politician straight down the line is mistaking that politician for Jesus. Trump is no exception. But there is a big difference between process and outcome, and when it came to process, Obama makes Trump look like exactly what he is - a Double-A player trying to bat clean-up in the majors.

Someone needs to remind our resident genius that Obama disobeyed a federal court ruling when it came to Dakota pipeline..

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/critics-protest-obama-administration-overriding-court-halt-dakota-access

Obama also ignored a court order on an amnesty matter.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/obama-administration-ignored-court-order-on-immigration

Obama was illiterate when it came to legal issues. His policies were overturned in the federal courts more than any other president before him.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/07/7-big-judicial-setbacks-to-obamas-executive-overreach/

[JustRalph]

Impeaching rogue Judges has always been an option. Up until this point I thought it might be out of bounds. But the legality of these orders is pretty obvious

Maybe it's time.......

[Fager Fan]

Does anyone want to talk about Obama making a solo trip to Hawaii in the days leading up to this judge's order?

[chadk66]

Does anyone want to talk about Obama making a solo trip to Hawaii in the days leading up to this judge's order?very interesting. did they meet on the tarmac?

[boxcar]

very interesting. did they meet on the tarmac?

:lol::lol: I was thinking the same thing.

[Clocker]

His ban violates the establishment clause of the first amendment and will be overturned even by this Supreme Court.

SCOTUS laid out the factors determining violation of the establishment clause in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. This resulted in what is now called the Lemon Test.

From Wiki:

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[3] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:


The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[FantasticDan]

Does anyone want to talk about Obama making a solo trip to Hawaii in the days leading up to this judge's order?:pound:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/03/independent-journal-review-joe-perticone-reporter-resigns-236147

Shortly after the story was posted, it received an editor's note that said: "This story has been updated to remove unnecessary speculation about the timing of the visit. We apologize for any undue conclusions that might have been drawn from the report."

By late afternoon, the story was pulled from the website. “IJR published an article that does not meet our editorial standards or represent IJR's vision or values. We have retracted the story, and we deeply regret the error," the page reads instead.

[boxcar]

:pound:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/03/independent-journal-review-joe-perticone-reporter-resigns-236147

So if they didn't meet on a tarmac somewhere, where did they meet?

[FantasticDan]

So if they didn't meet on a tarmac somewhere, where did they meet?

:ThmbUp:

[letswastemoney]

I'm confused why people go to such great lengths to promote and defend refugees from Muslim countries.

It's a brutal, oppressive religion, and if they ever had the majority here, future generations would be screwed.

[mostpost]

That is how the left works.
Well, you see, the judge did not take something Trump said when he was eighteen. He looked at many things Trump said during last year's campaign.

That is something every court does. Any time a court has to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, one of the things it looks at is congressional debates leading to the passage of the law; and speeches and interviews by legislators.

[mostpost]

The time is right to gerrymander the 9th Circus Court out of existence.

Drain the swamp. Attack the hive.
There is so much wrong with the above post that it boggles the mind. First of all, it is the ninth Circuit Court; not circus court. Second, it can't be gerrymandered out of existence. It's not like Congress which can be redistricted every ten years.

Also, the Ninth circuit so far has nothing to do with this case. The decision was made by a district judge. The ninth circuit may rule on an appeal. You can complain about them then.

[boxcar]

Well, you see, the judge did not take something Trump said when he was eighteen. He looked at many things Trump said during last year's campaign.

That is something every court does. Any time a court has to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, one of the things it looks at is congressional debates leading to the passage of the law; and speeches and interviews by legislators.

Nonsense! Trump's motivation for issuing the EO is not a legitimate concern for the court. Again, the Judiciary branch is not a co-Executive branch. The law gives the president supreme monarch-like power to issue immigration proclamations. This political hack abused his power by violating the separation of powers doctrine.

This is serious constitutional crisis and my hope is that Trump ignores these rulings, just as previous presidents have ignored bad rulings -- starting with your anointed one who ignored judicially sound rulings!

What we're witnessing here is are left wing whackos trying to implement a "silent coups" by resisting this administration at all costs. Trump needs to deal with this swiftly and decisively. And, yours truly, knows exactly how he should do this -- how he could blow the lid off this coups effort.

[Clocker]

That is something every court does. Any time a court has to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, one of the things it looks at is congressional debates leading to the passage of the law; and speeches and interviews by legislators.

Leading up to passage of the ACA bill so that they could see what was in it, every reference by Democrats in Congress or by Obama or by his administration to the "Individual Shared Responsibility Payment" called it a penalty.

If what you say is true, why then did SCOTUS reject that idea and call it a tax?

The idea that the constitutionality of a law could could be determined, or even affected, by legislative intent is not logical.

[Clocker]

First of all, it is the ninth Circuit Court; not circus court.

Every lawyer I have ever heard talk about it calls it the Ninth Circus Court. ;)

[mostpost]

Bullshit on a biscuit... Our Constitutions does not extend beyond our Border... nor apply to Non US Citizens of and in a foreign land. I does however give the President authority on who may come into the Country.

The Judges are acting as a Political Operative... plain and simple.
The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders, but it does extend to our president. It says that the president or anyone else in the country can not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. The discrimination in this case lies in not allowing people into the country based on religion.

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution the President is given authority over who can come into the country.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

They way that I can identify the right side of an issue is to see which side boxcar is on, because the opposite of his position is invariably the right one. I never said the judge was correct or incorrect in his ruling. Truth be told, I was actually surprised by his overwhelming repudiation of the EO. The only real criticism I made was that Trump went about it in his usual ham-handed way instead of doing it the way someone with policy experience would do it. Time and again you hear that the administration is being filled with inexperienced and often unqualified people whose main qualification is that they are Trump sycophants. Why is it so horrible to believe anybody, presidents included, should appoint people qualified to do a respective job? Trump appointed a guy named Sid Bowdidge to work at the Department of Energy on the office of Technology Transitions. His main work qualification was that he had been a massage therapist.

I get it that most of you are so negative about government that making a total joke of it seems like a good strategy. I simply won't buy that.

The criticism that this has anything to do with defending Muslims is simply off base. The issue is the slippery slope. If you can ban one religion, you can ban a nationality, you can ban a race, and you can ban someone who has a different political leaning. If you want to ban suspected terrorists, write the EO that way. If you want to ban fighters, go ahead and write it that way. I feel sorry for the refugees, most of who were just average people who got caught up in a war with a different type of megalomaniac, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Muslim. It's simply humanity.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[OntheRail]

The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders, but it does extend to our president. It says that the president or anyone else in the country can not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. The discrimination in this case lies in not allowing people into the country based on religion.

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution the President is given authority over who can come into the country.

The Order had not ONE mention of religion. Please show us the written section of said order that contains such religious bias. Like I said your full of it.... Mr. Brown Eyes.

As for the Presidential Authority to restrict, bar or ban enters has been posted... look it up in the old Democrats email release you have packed away from Obama error or Google it.


And yes I meant error....:puke:

[boxcar]

They way that I can identify the right side of an issue is to see which side boxcar is on, because the opposite of his position is invariably the right one. I never said the judge was correct or incorrect in his ruling. Truth be told, I was actually surprised by his overwhelming repudiation of the EO. The only real criticism I made was that Trump went about it in his usual ham-handed way instead of doing it the way someone with policy experience would do it. Time and again you hear that the administration is being filled with inexperienced and often unqualified people whose main qualification is that they are Trump sycophants. Why is it so horrible to believe anybody, presidents included, should appoint people qualified to do a respective job? Trump appointed a guy named Sid Bowdidge to work at the Department of Energy on the office of Technology Transitions. His main work qualification was that he had been a massage therapist.

I get it that most of you are so negative about government that making a total joke of it seems like a good strategy. I simply won't buy that.

The criticism that this has anything to do with defending Muslims is simply off base. The issue is the slippery slope. If you can ban one religion, you can ban a nationality, you can ban a race, and you can ban someone who has a different political leaning. If you want to ban suspected terrorists, write the EO that way. If you want to ban fighters, go ahead and write it that way. I feel sorry for the refugees, most of who were just average people who got caught up in a war with a different type of megalomaniac, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Muslim. It's simply humanity.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I would speak for you Halv. I would implore them to be merciful to you because of the state of your mind. And especially the fact that you can't retain your own words in your mind. You most certainly implied strong support of the court's decision because you soundly criticized Trump blaming him for the decision. You're a real piece of work! You did the same thing r on the old Religious thread. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders, but it does extend to our president. It says that the president or anyone else in the country can not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. The discrimination in this case lies in not allowing people into the country based on religion.

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution the President is given authority over who can come into the country.

Why are you so willfully ignorant? And you don't know how to conduct web searches? Try Article 1, Section 8.

[boxcar]

As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 in U.S. v. Flores-Montano, “The government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.”]

In this case, Congress—which under the Constitution has complete authority over immigration—passed a statute providing the president the authority to suspend the entry of aliens into the country.

According to Gorton, in “light of the ‘plenary congressional power to make polices and rules for exclusion of aliens … which pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), has been delegated to the president, the court concludes that the government’s reasons, as provided in the [executive order], are facially legitimate and bona fide.”

[JustRalph]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Actually, what I would have said if I was saying was, Obama was a lot smarter about how he wrote his EO's, although he had them overturned too. You know why he was smarter? He vetted them through the lawyers and the cabinet agencies. Instead of having a thin skin or delusions of omniscience, he let everybody take a shot at them, so that by the time they were completed they had a better chance of holding up if they were challenged. Trump is not the emperor. He is one of 330 million Americans and no matter what you think of him, he is governed by the same constitution the rest of us are. Let's call a spade a spade. He screwed up six ways from Sunday, he got nabbed, and now he is depending on people like you to act like he was just doing a job and got punished by the maniac left. You know, in almost anything in life, there is a smart way and a dumb way. A good trick to learn is to recognize both.

Here's a big difference between me and you. I know Obama did some dumb stuff and I'm fine admitting it. I never supported Obama straight down the line, not here and not anywhere else, and I'll tell you that anybody who supports a politician straight down the line is mistaking that politician for Jesus. Trump is no exception. But there is a big difference between process and outcome, and when it came to process, Obama makes Trump look like exactly what he is - a Double-A player trying to bat clean-up in the majors.

It's official. You're full of shit. Somebody tell this guy there's no pay per word deal on this board. Putting up with verbosity is one thing, in fact I've had you on ignore but popped open this little ditty just to see how goofy you can become in 5000+ words.

The original decision by the 9th circuit was an abortion. The latest decision went straight from judicial malpractice to plain political swagger from the bench. The judge had pre-written his decision and produced a 44 page document in two hours. He knows he will eventually be over-turned and doesn't give a shit.

Both decisions have been discredited by several high level lawyers and professors. Dershowitz et al and more of the TV types have turned on the decisions and pointed out the blatant political interference.

Now we get this critical writing that excoriates the original decision from 9th circuit peers.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/

So before you start bullshitting your way through another screed about Trump's lawyers etc, I suggest you consider the opine of the knowledgeable.

Btw, when you find yourself arguing over multiple posts with the same opine as Mostie the magical mailman, you may want to take note and examine the fervor in which you regurgitate your opinion. 99% of the time you will find yourself in a mailbag with a political hack and arguing the importance of the junk mail stacked all around you.


The actual writings
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

[boxcar]

It's official. You're full of shit. Somebody tell this guy there's no pay per word deal on this board. Putting up with verbosity is one thing, in fact I've had you on ignore but popped open this little ditty just to see how goofy you can become in 5000+ words.

The original decision by the 9th circuit was an abortion. The latest decision went straight from judicial malpractice to plain political swagger from the bench. The judge had pre-written his decision and produced a 44 page document in two hours. He knows he will eventually be over-turned and doesn't give a shit.

Both decisions have been discredited by several high level lawyers and professors. Dershowitz et al and more of the TV types have turned on the decisions and pointed out the blatant political interference.

Now we get this critical writing that excoriates the original decision from 9th circuit peers.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/

So before you start bullshitting your way through another screed about Trump's lawyers etc, I suggest you consider the opine of the knowledgeable.

Btw, when you find yourself arguing over multiple posts with the same opine as Mostie the magical mailman, you may want to take note and examine the fervor in which you regurgitate your opinion. 99% of the time you will find yourself in a mailbag with a political hack and arguing the importance of the junk mail stacked all around you.


The actual writings
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Hah, JR, you beat me to the punch. Good for you. Someone is awake around here! The review by 5 peers of the Three Stooges is SCATHING! Label this peer review!

Five 9th Circuit Judges Dish Out Ruthless Take Down to Anti-Trump Travel Ban Decision

The language of the opinion was almost Scalian: the five Ninth Circuit judges noted their “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors so bad that the “fundamental” errors “confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.” The district court questioned any judge issuing a “nationwide TRO” “without making findings of fact or conclusions of law” on the merits of the matter and conducting published opinions on seminal matters of national security based on “oral argument by phone involving four time zones.” (emphasis mine)

This is precisely what I said the other day. No decision by any of these political hack dimwits was ever based on the substance of the law. This is what they're saying. These judges (so-called) rendered their decisions "without making findings on facts or conclusions of law".

And then this excerpt:

Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

The five judges note some of the absurdities in the original 3-judge panel decision: claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago; and analogous Trumpian kind of immigration exclusion was uniformly approved by Circuit courts across the country in decisions issued between 2003 and 2008. As the five panelists conclude, the overwhelming precedent and legal history reveals a court simply cannot “apply ordinary constitutional standards to immigration policy.”

The five judges don’t quit there, though. They go on to identify other “obvious” errors. As the 5 judges note, the 3-judge panel hid from the most important statute, noting the 3-judge panel “regrettably” “never once mentioned” the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8. Additionally, the 3-judge panel failed to even note the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.

Every single justice involved in making these abominable decisions is more than worthy of impeachment! They rendered their decisions on the basis of their political ideology -- when in fact, they are not a political branch of the U.S. Government. Immigration policy is strictly a political issue -- and Congress has very clearly given supreme authority to the political branch of government known as the Executive Branch.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It's official. You're full of shit. Somebody tell this guy there's no pay per word deal on this board. Putting up with verbosity is one thing, in fact I've had you on ignore but popped open this little ditty just to see how goofy you can become in 5000+ words.

The original decision by the 9th circuit was an abortion. The latest decision went straight from judicial malpractice to plain political swagger from the bench. The judge had pre-written his decision and produced a 44 page document in two hours. He knows he will eventually be over-turned and doesn't give a shit.

Both decisions have been discredited by several high level lawyers and professors. Dershowitz et al and more of the TV types have turned on the decisions and pointed out the blatant political interference.

Now we get this critical writing that excoriates the original decision from 9th circuit peers.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9th-circuit-judges-dish-out-ruthless-take-down-to-anti-trump-travel-ban-decision/

So before you start bullshitting your way through another screed about Trump's lawyers etc, I suggest you consider the opine of the knowledgeable.

Btw, when you find yourself arguing over multiple posts with the same opine as Mostie the magical mailman, you may want to take note and examine the fervor in which you regurgitate your opinion. 99% of the time you will find yourself in a mailbag with a political hack and arguing the importance of the junk mail stacked all around you.


The actual writings
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

And the judge from Maryland? What is your rant against that decision?

You apparently can't read or comprehend very well. I said ten times, if the judge is wrong he'll eventually get overturned, not that he was right and yay for the judge. A right-wing parrot like yourself may simply be incapable of reading the sentences where I said I never expressed an opinion about whether the judge's order would hold. Perhaps you should have followed the thread all the way through. My criticism was NOT that Trump was wrong to want a travel ban - I repeatedly said it is his right as president to determine who gets in, as long as his order meets constitutional mandates - but that he was a rube in terms of how he went about it. In fact, I said a couple of posts back

I never said the judge was correct or incorrect in his ruling. Truth be told, I was actually surprised by his overwhelming repudiation of the EO.

I don't care who discredited it since I never expressed support for it. I actually expected the EO to be sustained. But like most of the alt-right, you only interpret to confirm the bias you bring along with you. This is one of the few places your singularly slanted view seems like the mainstream.

The fact that Trump is a serial liar doesn't take a bunch of media citations to prove. The fact that he is a rube doesn't either. But those are different issues than whether the travel ban should be overturned.

I'm rooting for Trump and the Congressional Republicans to implement the travel ban, the Trump budget, and the health care act. You haven't heard me criticize any of those three things.

Put me back on ignore. Then you won't be tempted to send another stupid response.

[JustRalph]

Yep....I'm the stupid one.

I went back and read your crap about Trump needing better lawyers etc. don't back up now.

[boxcar]

Yep....I'm the stupid one.

I went back and read your crap about Trump needing better lawyers etc. don't back up now.

Don't waste your time with Einstein, JR. He can't remember his own lies. And then he has the audacious temerity to say you can't read when he can't comprehend the immigration statute that gives the President 100% authority s for banning any class of aliens into the country for any reason he wants. Nothing in the law says the president must write this kind of EO or that kind of EO or that the EO must pass some kind of litmus test. No such thing in the law that in which Congress gave the President sole political authority over immigration entry issues.

I emailed Trump with my recommendation on how to proceed from this point. Here is what I wrote:

RE: Recent Court Decisions on Your Two Executive Orders.
Dear Mr. President:

My wife and I both voted for you and support you 100%. We also listen often to the Rush Limbaugh show and I agree totally with him on what is going on with these left-wing political hack judges. I believe with him that there is a "silent coup" going on that is intent on resisting you and your policies at every turn. These three court rulings constitute a serious constitutional crisis because the courts want to usurp the power/authority which the Constitution and the relevant U.S. immigration statute very clearly vest in the Executive Branch. For this reason, Mr. President, I would urge you that you deal with this issue swiftly and decisively by taking the fight back to the Left! Stand up for what is right and adopt this attitude (to paraphrase Obama): "When they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun". And you can do this because you own the bully pulpit. What I would recommend you do is that you execute your latest EO and then immediately make your case to the American people over the TV air waves by making a strong legal case for your actions, by making a case that immigration is not an inalienable or constitutional right, by defending your campaign remarks taken out of context by these leftist judges and by making an historical case for other presidents when they strongly disagreed with a court ruling, (beginning with Obama who ignored two federal court rulings!). I believe, sir, that this kind of direct, honest, transparent response to the American people would resonate at a positive level which no one has ever dreamt possible. I believer, sir, with all my heart that you would earn the respect even of people who did not vote for you, because you would be showing unprecedented respect to all American citizens by addressing all Americans directly. Moreover, you would send "shock and awe" waves to the media and all your political enemies -- not to mention that you would send a loud and clear message to all your enemies that you will not tolerate anyone attempting to compromise the integrity of the Executive Office's constitutionally-ordained authority. You are the maverick this country desperately needs at this time in our history.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your cabinet, Mr. President. May God bless you and give you an abundance of wisdom, which includes making wise use of your "bully pulpit".
Truly Yours,

I would encourage every Trump supporter here to express your support for our President, even if you don't agree with how my wife and I expressed ours.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yep....I'm the stupid one.

I went back and read your crap about Trump needing better lawyers etc. don't back up now.

He does need better lawyers. You were in law enforcement. You knew who the A-list attorneys were. There is a difference, especially when it comes to writing policy documents.

I'm not backing off. I said

Time and again you hear that the administration is being filled with inexperienced and often unqualified people whose main qualification is that they are Trump sycophants. Why is it so horrible to believe anybody, presidents included, should appoint people qualified to do a respective job? Trump appointed a guy named Sid Bowdidge to work at the Department of Energy on the office of Technology Transitions. His main work qualification was that he had been a massage therapist.

That included the attorneys.

Let's be clear. Criticizing Trump for giving first preference based on how soon someone endorsed him or how strong a supporter they were has traction. But I'm still not disagreeing with his authority to write a sustainable executive order on immigration.

[boxcar]

He does need better lawyers. You were in law enforcement. You knew who the A-list attorneys were. There is a difference, especially when it comes to writing policy documents.

I'm not backing off. I said

Time and again you hear that the administration is being filled with inexperienced and often unqualified people whose main qualification is that they are Trump sycophants. Why is it so horrible to believe anybody, presidents included, should appoint people qualified to do a respective job? Trump appointed a guy named Sid Bowdidge to work at the Department of Energy on the office of Technology Transitions. His main work qualification was that he had been a massage therapist.

That included the attorneys.

Let's be clear. Criticizing Trump for giving first preference based on how soon someone endorsed him or how strong a supporter they were has traction. But I'm still not disagreeing with his authority to write a sustainable executive order on immigration.

Hey, Einstein, Obama probably set a record for being overturned in court rulings. Did you ever criticize him for not getting lawyered up with the best and the brightest? :rolleyes:

[MargieRose]

I emailed Trump with my recommendation on how to proceed from this point. Here is what I wrote:

RE: Recent Court Decisions on Your Two Executive Orders.
Dear Mr. President:

My wife and I both voted for you and support you 100%. We also listen often to the Rush Limbaugh show and I agree totally with him on what is going on with these left-wing political hack judges. I believe with him that there is a "silent coup" going on that is intent on resisting you and your policies at every turn. These three court rulings constitute a serious constitutional crisis because the courts want to usurp the power/authority which the Constitution and the relevant U.S. immigration statute very clearly vest in the Executive Branch. For this reason, Mr. President, I would urge you that you deal with this issue swiftly and decisively by taking the fight back to the Left! Stand up for what is right and adopt this attitude (to paraphrase Obama): "When they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun". And you can do this because you own the bully pulpit. What I would recommend you do is that you execute your latest EO and then immediately make your case to the American people over the TV air waves by making a strong legal case for your actions, by making a case that immigration is not an inalienable or constitutional right, by defending your campaign remarks taken out of context by these leftist judges and by making an historical case for other presidents when they strongly disagreed with a court ruling, (beginning with Obama who ignored two federal court rulings!). I believe, sir, that this kind of direct, honest, transparent response to the American people would resonate at a positive level which no one has ever dreamt possible. I believer, sir, with all my heart that you would earn the respect even of people who did not vote for you, because you would be showing unprecedented respect to all American citizens by addressing all Americans directly. Moreover, you would send "shock and awe" waves to the media and all your political enemies -- not to mention that you would send a loud and clear message to all your enemies that you will not tolerate anyone attempting to compromise the integrity of the Executive Office's constitutionally-ordained authority. You are the maverick this country desperately needs at this time in our history.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your cabinet, Mr. President. May God bless you and give you an abundance of wisdom, which includes making wise use of your "bully pulpit".
Truly Yours,

I would encourage every Trump supporter here to express your support for our President, even if you don't agree with how my wife and I expressed ours.
This is an excellent letter, Boxcar. Let us know President Trump's thoughts, when he responds to your letter, as I am sure he will.

[Fager Fan]

The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders, but it does extend to our president. It says that the president or anyone else in the country can not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. The discrimination in this case lies in not allowing people into the country based on religion.

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution the President is given authority over who can come into the country.


No, it doesn't say we can't discriminate on allowance of immigrants based on religion. Find where it says that.

[Fager Fan]

Hey, Einstein, Obama probably set a record for being overturned in court rulings. Did you ever criticize him for not getting lawyered up with the best and the brightest? :rolleyes:

Why bother? Halv lives in his own world. He actually thinks it's an attorney's lack of qualifications that resulted in a lunatic of a judge deciding the merits of an executive order would be based on what the President said during his candidacy.

[boxcar]

But what's even more absurd is to think any state has any standing whatsoever in national immigration matters. Immigration is strictly a federal matter under the authority of the two political branches of government, most especially the Executive Branch. This black robe left wing extremist political hack who said this sounded much more like a politician or some MSM opinion reporter than a professional jurist. Not one of these courts has rendered a decision on the substance of the governing immigration statute, or the constitution or the abundance of case law precedence -- all of which strongly favor the President of the U.S. in this matter.

When you have three liberal Constitution experts (such as Alan Dershowitz and the others named in the Law and Newz article) siding with conservative legal experts on this issue, then you know these three sets of court decisions are really bad.

[dkithore]

What are the consequences of ignoring the Hawaii judge's ruling?
Who has more power? Elected president or an appointed judge of a state, within the context of Constitution?

I am no lawyer. But offensive play is ignore his ruling. Do what people have asked him to do.

[Tom]

From the decision.

When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO.

The opinion on evidence is apparently not shared universally.

Nice move. You use the illegal decision to support your argument. Circular reference.

[Tom]

Does anyone want to talk about Obama making a solo trip to Hawaii in the days leading up to this judge's order?

Deja vus....Clinton's "running into" the AG on a plane days before the email decision.

and don not forget, OBama's Grandmother's death just days after a previous visit there, in during the height of the birther rumors.

Death and crime follow Obama. When it is convenient.

[chadk66]

If I was Trump I wouldn't give this Judge the time of day. I'd ignore him completely and continue with the travel ban. What they gonna do call the cops :lol:

[boxcar]

What are the consequences of ignoring the Hawaii judge's ruling?
Who has more power? Elected president or an appointed judge of a state, within the context of Constitution?

I am no lawyer. But offensive play is ignore his ruling. Do what people have asked him to do.

That is precisely the course of action I strongly recommended to Trump in my letter to him.

In this case, the Judicial Branch of the government has zero say in entry policies into this country. Immigration policy is strictly relegated to the two political branches of the government and the Constitution and Legislative Branch have given the Executive Branch all authority. As stated previously, Trump has the full force of law behind him, including precedence in case law. This is a slam-dunk for Trump, providing he handles it properly. He must approach this as a national security issue for the public protection. He has full authority under the statute to limit or bar entry of ANY CLASS of people into this country. This means he could bar Christians, he could bar Hindus, he could bar Muslims, he could bar members of a specific foreign political party or organization, he could bar diseased people from coming in, etc., etc. The President of the U.S. has full authority to do any of this.

[Tom]

Good post, Boxie.
The ONLY thing the judicial can do is rule on the legality of the law/bill/order.

In this case, they over-stepped their authority.
The judge should be arrested.

Trump should issue an order banning ALL entry from every nation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why bother? Halv lives in his own world. He actually thinks it's an attorney's lack of qualifications that resulted in a lunatic of a judge deciding the merits of an executive order would be based on what the President said during his candidacy.

Anyone who supports boxcar is in the running for moron of the year. Fager, you are a prime example of a guy who reads the internet and claims omniscience. If I remember you were the genius who argued 200 picograms of a metabolite was the same as 200 picograms of a substance. You probably still haven't figured that one out.

Here's what I actually think. More clever attorneys and proper vetting would have made a difference. Obviously it would have made a difference the first time, in case you forgot that debacle. You don't think a smart attorney would have been able to write that first order without all the triggers? And if they had learned all the lessons, it would have made a difference the second time. All you wing nuts are down on the Hawaii judge - but why not the Maryland judge?

Blame the judge, even though I'm not sure if you actually understand what the decision said and didn't say.

You'll never get that talent makes a difference because as a sycophant the truth becomes malleable, just like it is for Trump. Don't blame his people, blame the judge - although I'm not sure what the criticism of the Maryland judge was - because in Trump world it could never have been him who screwed up.

Let me ask a simple question that a smarter lawyer might have asked. If the EO was not meant to be a Muslim ban, but a terrorist ban, could it have been written to focus on preventing a terrorist from slipping past the extreme vetting instead of assuming only a ban of all Muslims from those countries could stop those terrorists dead in their tracks?

Do you think all the case law cited by judges was irrelevant, including Supreme Court decisions?

Only in this small venue can legitimate alternative points of view be the subject of derision.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Good post, Boxie.
The ONLY thing the judicial can do is rule on the legality of the law/bill/order.

In this case, they over-stepped their authority.
The judge should be arrested.

Trump should issue an order banning ALL entry from every nation.

I'm sure both you and boxcar realize that the judge did not rule on the legality of the order. Check that. Actually I'm not sure you understand that. He issued a temporary restraining order temporarily halting the implementation of the EO. He did not rule, or even mention anything about the president's authority. The most extreme he got was to suggest the TRO was appropriate because the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on constitutional grounds. In fact, if this decision goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the issue is whether the EO constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution, not whether the president has the authority to issue EO's regarding immigration. I have a feeling the difference is a little too subtle for some here to grasp.

Isn't this the place where the Constitution is sacred and the framers infallible? Do you not have faith that the Supreme Court will come to the right decision about the Constitutionality of the EO? The president has broad authority over immigration, but like every law the Congress passes, it still has to pass Constitutional muster. boxcar's suggestion that Trump has unfettered authority simply does pass the laugh test.

I'll bet a smart lawyer could confirm that. Actually, I'll bet a third year law student could explain why boxcar's analysis is wrong.

[davew]

If someone wanted to restrict entry of a 'group' or 'religion', what percentage of the world's population of that 'group' or 'religion' should be included to be effective?

[chrisl]

Trump should send 50,000 of these Syrian immigrants to Hawaii. Then lets see how that judge deals with it. The people of Hawaii, in my opinion will not put up with this. Obama put these people where ever he wanted. I say, send them to Hawaii then.

[DSB]

the TRO was appropriate because the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on constitutional grounds.

Which, of course, they aren't.

I have a feeling the difference is a little too subtle for some here to grasp.
Thanks for clarifying. We dummies are very lucky to have someone of your intellect explaining these complex matters.

[Fager Fan]

Trump should send 50,000 of these Syrian immigrants to Hawaii. Then lets see how that judge deals with it. The people of Hawaii, in my opinion will not put up with this. Obama put these people where ever he wanted. I say, send them to Hawaii then.

I like that plan. To make it even better, send another 50,000 to Halv's neighborhood.

[Tom]

Isn't this the place where the Constitution is sacred and the framers infallible? Do you not have faith that the Supreme Court will come to the right decision about the Constitutionality of the EO?

It is constitutional. Someone can explain that to you later, after your nap and cocoa.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It is constitutional. Someone can explain that to you later, after your nap and cocoa.

It's constitutional when the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, and for the 95th time, I'm fine waiting until that point before making that pronouncement.

Why is it so difficult for you to figure out the issue isn't Trump's constitutional authority to control immigration but his authority to ignore the constitution while doing it?

[Tom]

He is not ignoring it at all.
The order is 100% in line with the law and his authority.
the POS Man in a Black Dress in the 57th states is one with no authority here.

But if you are willing to wait, how about you take the unvetted people into YOUR town, as suggested earlier?

[DSB]

Why is it so difficult for you to figure out the issue isn't Trump's constitutional authority to control immigration but his authority to ignore the constitution while doing it?

Trump's "ignoring the constitution" exists only in the mind of some obscure, leftist, activist judge who should be removed.

That is, of course, unless I've missed some subtlety.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks for clarifying. We dummies are very lucky to have someone of your intellect explaining these complex matters.

Well, apparently someone has to do it.

I'm not sure why I take all the shit when I've never said I agreed with the judge. In fact, I said I expected the EO to be upheld. All I've done is clarify what the TRO said because most people here conflate Trump's authority to control immigration with the constitutionality of how he expresses that authority.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Trump's "ignoring the constitution" exists only in the mind of some obscure, leftist, activist judge who should be removed.

That is, of course, unless I've missed some subtlety.

Well that should have been judges since the Maryland judge said that, "Trump's executive order was "the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban..."

Of course, neither judge did anything more than temporarily stop implementation of the order until it can be judicially reviewed. And who knows. Perhaps his brilliant lawyers will be able to convince the appropriate court that the constitutional issues only existed in the minds of those obscure, leftist, activist judges.

[Fager Fan]

Well, apparently someone has to do it.

I'm not sure why I take all the shit when I've never said I agreed with the judge. In fact, I said I expected the EO to be upheld. All I've done is clarify what the TRO said because most people here conflate Trump's authority to control immigration with the constitutionality of how he expresses that authority.

You're taking shit because you're trying to take both sides of this issue. That's one way to try being right regardless but it doesn't sit well with others. Nor your constant patronizing attitude.

[Fager Fan]

Well that should have been judges since the Maryland judge said that, "Trump's executive order was "the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban..."

Of course, neither judge did anything more than temporarily stop implementation of the order until it can be judicially reviewed. And who knows. Perhaps his brilliant lawyers will be able to convince the appropriate court that the constitutional issues only existed in the minds of those obscure, leftist, activist judges.

Again, his "brilliant attorneys" did nothing wrong here. You again fault them for a judge pulling something unreasonable and not within the law out of his ass.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Again, his "brilliant attorneys" did nothing wrong here. You again fault them for a judge pulling something unreasonable and not within the law out of his ass.

They didn't hit the first executive order on the head did they? If you are correct that their failure to stop the TRO's was a result of external factors beyond their control, then unless you believe the Supreme Court is biased like the judges so far have been, Trump will prevail. We'll see what happens.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Constitution does not extend beyond our borders, but it does extend to our president. It says that the president or anyone else in the country can not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. The discrimination in this case lies in not allowing people into the country based on religion.

Perhaps you can show me where in the Constitution the President is given authority over who can come into the country.How can it be based on religion when all those other Muslim people from majority Muslim nations not on the list are allowed to come here?

It's not based on religion. It's based on country of origin. A very limited number of countries. While the vast majority of Muslims would, under this order, continue to have the privilege of coming to the USA.

Your argument above is extremely weak. There is no way any unbiased person could conclude that this EO is discriminating based on religion, when TONS of Muslims will still be allowed to travel into the United States.

It's really quite simple.

[PaceAdvantage]

They way that I can identify the right side of an issue is to see which side boxcar is on, because the opposite of his position is invariably the right one. I never said the judge was correct or incorrect in his ruling. Truth be told, I was actually surprised by his overwhelming repudiation of the EO. The only real criticism I made was that Trump went about it in his usual ham-handed way instead of doing it the way someone with policy experience would do it. Time and again you hear that the administration is being filled with inexperienced and often unqualified people whose main qualification is that they are Trump sycophants. Why is it so horrible to believe anybody, presidents included, should appoint people qualified to do a respective job? Trump appointed a guy named Sid Bowdidge to work at the Department of Energy on the office of Technology Transitions. His main work qualification was that he had been a massage therapist.

I get it that most of you are so negative about government that making a total joke of it seems like a good strategy. I simply won't buy that.

The criticism that this has anything to do with defending Muslims is simply off base. The issue is the slippery slope. If you can ban one religion, you can ban a nationality, you can ban a race, and you can ban someone who has a different political leaning. If you want to ban suspected terrorists, write the EO that way. If you want to ban fighters, go ahead and write it that way. I feel sorry for the refugees, most of who were just average people who got caught up in a war with a different type of megalomaniac, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Muslim. It's simply humanity.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.Oy vey...

One question. In what non-ham-handed way could Trump have possibly written this order and not have it banned by a left-friendly judge who rules based on ideology and not the merits of the case before him or her?

The answer is...he can't. There is no possible way for Trump to regulate entry into the US from the countries mentioned in the current EO without the possibility of an activist judge going against him. So please stop blaming this on Trump's ham-handedness and put the blame squarely where it belongs.

[davew]

How can it be based on religion when all those other Muslim people from majority Muslim nations not on the list are allowed to come here?

It's not based on religion. It's based on country of origin. A very limited number of countries. While the vast majority of Muslims would, under this order, continue to have the privilege of coming to the USA.

Your argument above is extremely weak. There is no way any unbiased person could conclude that this EO is discriminating based on religion, when TONS of Muslims will still be allowed to travel into the United States.

It's really quite simple.

It is the same 'dem' logic that says Syrian refugee acceptance is not based on religion when over 99% allowed are from one religion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Oy vey...

One question. In what non-ham-handed way could Trump have possibly written this order and not have it banned by a left-friendly judge who rules based on ideology and not the merits of the case before him or her?

The answer is...he can't. There is no possible way for Trump to regulate entry into the US from the countries mentioned in the current EO without the possibility of an activist judge going against him. So please stop blaming this on Trump's ham-handedness and put the blame squarely where it belongs.

I respectfully disagree. First, let's not conveniently forget his first EO was an invitation to be found constitutionally lacking. You have to believe the reason he didn't fight on that one was because he got a lot of advice that his prospects were dim. It was ham-handed. The second one was certain to have problems because Trump had tipped his hand throughout the campaign and the first EO.

By writing an EO that only indirectly addressed a problem, he left himself open for what happened. If you ban everyone from a country, when someone asks the obvious question, what problem are you trying to solve, the answer has to be just as obviously, we have no confidence in our ability to identify terrorists among the refugee population, therefore we will ban all Muslims (the religion where the population of terrorists will reside) and by doing so assure we have banned the potential terrorists. That is a core issue.

Had he written the order to say, people from those countries must demonstrate to the satisfaction of ICE that they had never supported ISIS, either materially or philosophically, that eliminated the question of discriminating on the basis of religion. Anyone applying for a visa or refugee status might have to produce specific documentation or sustain interrogations from immigration officials. Whatever. The point is that you had to know the first EO put you under the microscope and a subsequent EO had to clearly avoid the constitutional question. It is still possible one of your activist judges could have issued a TRO for some reason or another, but that order doesn't actually ban them, and it more clearly doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, even though proving you never supported terrorism or terrorists is still a really high bar.

I hate to ever mention my experience because I have to listen to the bullshit, but I ghosted for politicians of both parties (and more Republicans than Democrats) at very high levels for many years. Yes, I have a bias that people who are experienced and successful at writing policy documents have an advantage over people whose qualification is that they are deeply devoted to one person. It seems common knowledge that White House staffers lack specific experience writing high level policy documents.

For goodness sake. You'd think horseplayers would recognize how big an advantage experienced players have over newbies. You want to keep believing he couldn't have bullet-proofed the EO and still accomplished what he wanted to accomplish, great. I have a legitimately different opinion.

[DSB]

I respectfully disagree. First, let's not conveniently forget his first EO was an invitation to be found constitutionally lacking. You have to believe the reason he didn't fight on that one was because he got a lot of advice that his prospects were dim.
If he got advice not to contest the ruling I don't think it was because his advisors thought it unconstitutional. Everyone probably realized it would have saved time - and therefore perhaps kept terrorists out - to draft a new one. Time was of the essence, not constitutionality.

By writing an EO that only indirectly addressed a problem, he left himself open for what happened. If you ban everyone from a country, when someone asks the obvious question, what problem are you trying to solve, the answer has to be just as obviously, we have no confidence in our ability to identify terrorists among the refugee population, therefore we will ban all Muslims (the religion where the population of terrorists will reside) and by doing so assure we have banned the potential terrorists. That is a core issue.

I read the entire text of the order. Nowhere within it exists any reference to Muslims, Islam, the Koran, etc. Please cut and paste that part; I apparently missed it.

Had he written the order to say, people from those countries must demonstrate to the satisfaction of ICE that they had never supported ISIS, either materially or philosophically, that eliminated the question of discriminating on the basis of religion.
So Al-queda, Hezbolah, Boko Haram, or any other Islamic terrorist organization would be okay?

Again, show me the section of the order that discriminates on the basis of religion.

a subsequent EO had to clearly avoid the constitutional question.

Please specifically point to the part of the EO that renders it unconstitutional.

I hate to ever mention my experience because I have to listen to the bullshit, but I ghosted for politicians of both parties (and more Republicans than Democrats) at very high levels for many years. Yes, I have a bias that people who are experienced and successful at writing policy documents have an advantage over people whose qualification is that they are deeply devoted to one person. It seems common knowledge that White House staffers lack specific experience writing high level policy documents.

For goodness sake. You'd think horseplayers would recognize how big an advantage experienced players have over newbies. You want to keep believing he couldn't have bullet-proofed the EO and still accomplished what he wanted to accomplish, great. I have a legitimately different opinion.

There is no way to "bullet proof" anything when all it takes is someone's "intuition" to block it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If he got advice not to contest the ruling I don't think it was because his advisors thought it unconstitutional. Everyone probably realized it would have saved time - and therefore perhaps kept terrorists out - to draft a new one. Time was of the essence, not constitutionality.

Well there is something we agree on. Time took precedence over constitutionality, which is why we had the first EO to begin with. Of course, as it turns out, drafting the second order hasn't saved any time, but drafting a bulletproof order the first time, even if it took a little longer to draft that order, would have been quicker than what turned out. But, just blame the judge because the Trump team did a marvelous job on the first EO.

I read the entire text of the order. Nowhere within it exists any reference to Muslims, Islam, the Koran, etc. Please cut and paste that part; I apparently missed it.

A real head shaker. The explanation in the TRO is simple. Banning all people from a country bans all Muslims. Banning all Muslims bans all radical Islamic terrorists. And that had to have been the point. I just don't see how anyone could miss that point. Do you have a more logical explanation for banning everyone? Because if you remember, Trump was happy to move the Christians to the front of the line, so he didn't appear interested in banning them. Whether it was said overtly or not, those with average intelligence and comprehension (I'm sure you'd argue about whether the two judges fell into that category) understood the effective outcome was to keep some subset of Muslims (the radical terrorists) out of America, and the way they chose to do it was by banning everybody, which in theory keeps the terrorists out. Considering those countries are between 90 and 99% Muslim, it was effectively a Muslim ban. That is what the TRO concluded.

So Al-queda, Hezbolah, Boko Haram, or any other Islamic terrorist organization would be okay?

Again, show me the section of the order that discriminates on the basis of religion.

What radical right wingers love to do is to assign some nefarious motivation to their opponents. If there was anything I said that could possibly imply I was fine with any Islamic terrorist organizations, I would say you had to have misread it. Clearly, all I said was that if Trump had specifically targeted terrorists, including the ones you mentioned, he may have been able to avoid the problems of a challenge based on constitutional grounds. And I gave you a simple example of how to do that and still essentially make it extremely difficult for people to emigrate to the U.S. Here's what you don't get. Trump needed to target the people in the EO that we all agree need to be kept out.

At the risk of being repetitive, banning all people from those six countries is effectively a Muslim ban in the mind of two judges for the reasons I cited.

Please specifically point to the part of the EO that renders it unconstitutional.

I've explained it in this post. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant. I told you why Hawaii decided to challenge the order. Since you apparently didn't see what happened, I explained. Just helping my fellow man. If you want to argue, argue with someone who is convinced that the judge was right that the plaintiffs would prevail on Constitutional grounds. I'm not convinced the plaintiffs will prevail. I just understand the argument.

There is no way to "bullet proof" anything when all it takes is someone's "intuition" to block it.

Believe that if you want. I choose to believe a better effort could have avoided where we are now. Trump, you, everyone had to know there was enough enmity that whatever he did was going to be challenged. Whether or not you believe he did an amazing job, when he wrote the first EO, Trump had to ask qualified people if there were any potential problems that could be avoided. If the answer was no, well, you can't criticize him for either order. If the answer was yes, well you gotta point a finger at fearless leader. I don't have the answer, but I assume the Supreme Court does. And as I've said, I'm fine waiting until then.

[Fager Fan]

I respectfully disagree. First, let's not conveniently forget his first EO was an invitation to be found constitutionally lacking. You have to believe the reason he didn't fight on that one was because he got a lot of advice that his prospects were dim. It was ham-handed. The second one was certain to have problems because Trump had tipped his hand throughout the campaign and the first EO.

By writing an EO that only indirectly addressed a problem, he left himself open for what happened. If you ban everyone from a country, when someone asks the obvious question, what problem are you trying to solve, the answer has to be just as obviously, we have no confidence in our ability to identify terrorists among the refugee population, therefore we will ban all Muslims (the religion where the population of terrorists will reside) and by doing so assure we have banned the potential terrorists. That is a core issue.

Had he written the order to say, people from those countries must demonstrate to the satisfaction of ICE that they had never supported ISIS, either materially or philosophically, that eliminated the question of discriminating on the basis of religion. Anyone applying for a visa or refugee status might have to produce specific documentation or sustain interrogations from immigration officials. Whatever. The point is that you had to know the first EO put you under the microscope and a subsequent EO had to clearly avoid the constitutional question. It is still possible one of your activist judges could have issued a TRO for some reason or another, but that order doesn't actually ban them, and it more clearly doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, even though proving you never supported terrorism or terrorists is still a really high bar.

I hate to ever mention my experience because I have to listen to the bullshit, but I ghosted for politicians of both parties (and more Republicans than Democrats) at very high levels for many years. Yes, I have a bias that people who are experienced and successful at writing policy documents have an advantage over people whose qualification is that they are deeply devoted to one person. It seems common knowledge that White House staffers lack specific experience writing high level policy documents.

For goodness sake. You'd think horseplayers would recognize how big an advantage experienced players have over newbies. You want to keep believing he couldn't have bullet-proofed the EO and still accomplished what he wanted to accomplish, great. I have a legitimately different opinion.

And you wonder why you're given shit. We heard you the first 300 times. My dog with his bone has nothing on you.

[OntheRail]

And you wonder why you're given shit. We heard you the first 300 times. My dog with his bone has nothing on you.

He a former Fedwell employee... redundancy is deeply rooted in them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And you wonder why you're given shit. We heard you the first 300 times. My dog with his bone has nothing on you.

Every one of my posts is in response to someone asking me a question, often the same question. I suppose I could have ignored DSB and PA, or said I can't answer all your questions because Fager Fan will get upset if I keep repeating myself. When people stop asking the same question, or stop being vehement about whether Trump could have done better, I'll be more than happy to give up responding.

On PA, there is one far right view on everything, and everyone who disagrees is given shit. And that includes any legitimate alternative viewpoints. I'm specifically given shit because I don't hide the fact that I argue passionately for my point of view, and that's seen as arrogance or a put down of other people here. I don't know that I remember anyone here saying, that's a good point, but.... Of course, even if I agree (hey, I'm actually in favor of killing federal funding to NEA), I take shit about how I agreed. That's life at PA if you're a goaddamn liberal or a Democrat or not one of the people who believes everything Trump says or does.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

He a former Fedwell employee... redundancy is deeply rooted in them.

Never worked for the Federal government. I was offered a job once. I said no. Used to be there was a lot on google about me. But that was four years ago.

I noticed not knowing what you are talking about doesn't stop most of you from ripping off an off-base insult.

[ReplayRandall]

I don't know that I remember anyone here saying, that's a good point....
You're memory is starting to fade and you have selective memory to boot. You seem to forget the agreeable points/posts, but choose to only recollect the adversarial posts, which you say are right at 100%..C'mon, Rich.

[Fager Fan]

Every one of my posts is in response to someone asking me a question, often the same question. I suppose I could have ignored DSB and PA, or said I can't answer all your questions because Fager Fan will get upset if I keep repeating myself. When people stop asking the same question, or stop being vehement about whether Trump could have done better, I'll be more than happy to give up responding.

On PA, there is one far right view on everything, and everyone who disagrees is given shit. And that includes any legitimate alternative viewpoints. I'm specifically given shit because I don't hide the fact that I argue passionately for my point of view, and that's seen as arrogance or a put down of other people here. I don't know that I remember anyone here saying, that's a good point, but.... Of course, even if I agree (hey, I'm actually in favor of killing federal funding to NEA), I take shit about how I agreed. That's life at PA if you're a goaddamn liberal or a Democrat or not one of the people who believes everything Trump says or does.

So in other words, don't respond to you, because you will have to respond to each and every response to you, even when you're saying zero new and regurgitating the same argument over and over. One dissertation in response to the dozen people who disagree with you is plenty.

You don't take crap for your arrogance because you're a liberal but instead because you're arrogant.

[OntheRail]

Never worked for the Federal government. I was offered a job once. I said no. Used to be there was a lot on google about me. But that was four years ago.

I noticed not knowing what you are talking about doesn't stop most of you from ripping off an off-base insult.

I never said Federal Government.... I said Fedwell. You claim no care in what happens with SS cause you "never paid into it no dog in the fight".. so that would lead to belief you worked in the Public sector (Fedwell). As all private employees pay into it.


And you say Trump has thin skin... :pound:

[DSB]

Well there is something we agree on. Time took precedence over constitutionality, which is why we had the first EO to begin with. Of course, as it turns out, drafting the second order hasn't saved any time, but drafting a bulletproof order the first time, even if it took a little longer to draft that order, would have been quicker than what turned out. But, just blame the judge because the Trump team did a marvelous job on the first EO.
You continue to assert there is such a thing as a "bulletproof order." I've explained that if something as subjective as an activist judge's intuition being grounds for a TRO, then nothing they can draft is "bulletproof."



A real head shaker. The explanation in the TRO is simple. Banning all people from a country bans all Muslims. Banning all Muslims bans all radical Islamic terrorists. And that had to have been the point. I just don't see how anyone could miss that point. Do you have a more logical explanation for banning everyone? Because if you remember, Trump was happy to move the Christians to the front of the line, so he didn't appear interested in banning them. Whether it was said overtly or not, those with average intelligence and comprehension (I'm sure you'd argue about whether the two judges fell into that category) understood the effective outcome was to keep some subset of Muslims (the radical terrorists) out of America, and the way they chose to do it was by banning everybody, which in theory keeps the terrorists out. Considering those countries are between 90 and 99% Muslim, it was effectively a Muslim ban. That is what the TRO concluded.
I know what the TRO concluded, and I think it's bullshit. PERIOD.

What radical right wingers love to do is to assign some nefarious motivation to their opponents. If there was anything I said that could possibly imply I was fine with any Islamic terrorist organizations, I would say you had to have misread it. Clearly, all I said was that if Trump had specifically targeted terrorists, including the ones you mentioned, he may have been able to avoid the problems of a challenge based on constitutional grounds. And I gave you a simple example of how to do that and still essentially make it extremely difficult for people to emigrate to the U.S. Here's what you don't get. Trump needed to target the people in the EO that we all agree need to be kept out.
Here's what you don't get: Your simplistic and narrow example of how the order would be implemented wouldn't keep any terrorists out, and the order would still be at the mercy of leftist judges who can always pull the "secret intent" card from their sleeves.

At the risk of being repetitive, banning all people from those six countries is effectively a Muslim ban in the mind of two judges for the reasons I cited.
No kiddin'. And at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said all along: their reasoning is bullshit.



I just understand the argument.

Of course you do. And anyone who disagrees with you doesn't.



Believe that if you want. I choose to believe a better effort could have avoided where we are now. Trump, you, everyone had to know there was enough enmity that whatever he did was going to be challenged.

Unlike you, I can only speak for myself, and I had no idea that something that seemed so cut and dried as executive authority concerning admission to the country would be challenged.

I suppose that even at my age I want to believe that those in power all want what's best for the country. Apparently naivete has no age limit.

I don't have the answer, but I assume the Supreme Court does. And as I've said, I'm fine waiting until then.

It looks like that is what is going to happen. But unlike you, I'm not fine waiting - in order to satisfy the agendas of activist judges - while those who wish us harm could be pouring in from the places covered in the ban.

[NJ Stinks]

I don't know that I remember anyone here saying, that's a good point, but.... Of course, even if I agree (hey, I'm actually in favor of killing federal funding to NEA), I take shit about how I agreed. That's life at PA if you're a goaddamn liberal or a Democrat or not one of the people who believes everything Trump says or does.

I've read many of your posts and thought you made a lot of good points. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

As for me speaking up and saying so, I haven't because you don't need a pat on the back from a poster who wonders how our rather loosely put together Tweeter of a Leader ever escaped from New York let alone wound up anywhere near DC.

Good luck getting one from the "Make America Go Back To The Stone Age Again" crowd. :jump:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I never said Federal Government.... I said Fedwell. You claim no care in what happens with SS cause you "never paid into it no dog in the fight".. so that would lead to belief you worked in the Public sector (Fedwell). As all private employees pay into it.


And you say Trump has thin skin... :pound:

If you look hard enough you can find where I worked. If you care at all.

[boxcar]

You continue to assert there is such a thing as a "bulletproof order." I've explained that if something as subjective as an activist judge's intuition being grounds for a TRO, then nothing they can draft is "bulletproof."




I know what the TRO concluded, and I think it's bullshit. PERIOD.


Here's what you don't get: Your simplistic and narrow example of how the order would be implemented wouldn't keep any terrorists out, and the order would still be at the mercy of leftist judges who can always pull the "secret intent" card from their sleeves.


No kiddin'. And at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said all along: their reasoning is bullshit.





Of course you do. And anyone who disagrees with you doesn't.





Unlike you, I can only speak for myself, and I had no idea that something that seemed so cut and dried as executive authority concerning admission to the country would be challenged.

I suppose that even at my age I want to believe that those in power all want what's best for the country. Apparently naivete has no age limit.



It looks like that is what is going to happen. But unlike you, I'm not fine waiting - in order to satisfy the agendas of activist judges - while those who wish us harm could be pouring in from the places covered in the ban.

DSB, you're wasting your time. Mr. Halv is stuck on stupid. He can't understand how the judicial branch of the government has absolutely no authority to prohibit a lawful EO that is backed by the Constitution, statutory law and case law -- all of which give the President full authority in immigration matters. Entry policy into the U.S. is beyond the purview of the judiciary. If the the President wrote a one-liner EO that said:

"All aliens are barred from this day forward from entering the U.S. until further notice", such an order would be lawful. No rationale would have to be given.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You continue to assert there is such a thing as a "bulletproof order." I've explained that if something as subjective as an activist judge's intuition being grounds for a TRO, then nothing they can draft is "bulletproof."

I know what the TRO concluded, and I think it's bullshit. PERIOD.

Here's what you don't get: Your simplistic and narrow example of how the order would be implemented wouldn't keep any terrorists out, and the order would still be at the mercy of leftist judges who can always pull the "secret intent" card from their sleeves.

No kiddin'. And at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said all along: their reasoning is bullshit.

Unlike you, I can only speak for myself, and I had no idea that something that seemed so cut and dried as executive authority concerning admission to the country would be challenged.

I suppose that even at my age I want to believe that those in power all want what's best for the country. Apparently naivete has no age limit.



The height of arrogance has to be believing you are smarter and more qualified than people experienced and trained in a particular field (like two judges). It is an affliction that seems to be pandemic at PA. Trump in essence instituted a Muslim ban pertinent to six countries and was rewarded with a temporary restraining order that indicated the judges believed he would lose the constitutional argument. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, or in this case a Muslim ban. Now perhaps you've said all along their reasoning is bullshit, but as far as I can tell you came to that conclusion because they are biased, left-wing judges, and what we really needed was a fair-minded right wing judge. If your argument is that the president can do what he wants with immigration and no one can stop him (the boxcar concept) you don't understand that a law passed by Congress is subject to a constitutional test. Every law. If you don't understand that Executive Authority has constitutional limits, I might suggest you check with someone who would know. Check the Constitution on immigration. No mention of who decides who gets in and who stays out.

And when the Supreme Court decides, they will not decide based on Trump's motivation to do what's best for America, nor whether the Congress was right to pass a law giving the president authority over immigration, but on whether one simple EO meets a constitutional test. That's reality.

I'm not surprised you can't see how focusing on terrorists and making the entry test extremely tough would work and pass constitutional muster. Other than the fact that it's been done successfully before, I don't have a better reason.

I've never spoken for anyone but myself on this issue. It's apparently another delusion you suffer from. And multiple times I've said I neither agree nor disagree with the judges. I only claimed I understand how they came to their decision and it does have a logic to it. But the best and brightest will make the final decision, and that's neither you nor me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You don't take crap for your arrogance because you're a liberal but instead because you're arrogant.

Well, as Dizzy Dean quipped, it ain't braggin' if you can do it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Every one of my posts is in response to someone asking me a question, often the same question. I suppose I could have ignored DSB and PA, or said I can't answer all your questions because Fager Fan will get upset if I keep repeating myself. When people stop asking the same question, or stop being vehement about whether Trump could have done better, I'll be more than happy to give up responding.

On PA, there is one far right view on everything, and everyone who disagrees is given shit. And that includes any legitimate alternative viewpoints. I'm specifically given shit because I don't hide the fact that I argue passionately for my point of view, and that's seen as arrogance or a put down of other people here. I don't know that I remember anyone here saying, that's a good point, but.... Of course, even if I agree (hey, I'm actually in favor of killing federal funding to NEA), I take shit about how I agreed. That's life at PA if you're a goaddamn liberal or a Democrat or not one of the people who believes everything Trump says or does.Not true, but it's a nice excuse and a good way to join all the other self-proclaimed martyrs here.

Besides, you love it here. All left-leaners love it here. Here is the only place in your lives where you aren't surrounded by all your other like-minded lefty pals, and you'll actually be able to get down and dirty with people who don't agree with you. Keeps you on your toes.

If you and the other left-leaners hated it so much here, you would have left a long time ago. But something keeps you guys sticking around off-topic. Yup, some of you do go away on your own, but most of you eventually return.

Because you love it here. :jump:

[Fager Fan]

Well, as Dizzy Dean quipped, it ain't braggin' if you can do it.

You do arrogance well, just not justification for arrogance. For example, you just said again that this was a Muslim ban, and no amount of common sense and elementary reading and comprehension ability could lead one to that conclusion.

[DSB]

The height of arrogance has to be believing you are smarter and more qualified than people experienced and trained in a particular field (like two judges).
Although I'd like to think I'm the only person in the country who believes the decisions were wrong, I cannot, in good conscience, take sole credit. (how's that for modesty?) Many other people think the same, and I'd venture a guess that even some who are as smart and qualified as those judges believe as I do. When this case gets to the SC, I'll point them out to you. They will be making the case for the Federal Government.

Trump in essence instituted a Muslim ban pertinent to six countries and was rewarded with a temporary restraining order that indicated the judges believed he would lose the constitutional argument. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, or in this case a Muslim ban.
I know I'm not nearly as brilliant as you, but I did read the EO and I don't see it. Again, some other people read it too, and they don't see it either. Oh well, at least I have some smart people who agree with my analysis.

Now perhaps you've said all along their reasoning is bullshit, but as far as I can tell you came to that conclusion because they are biased, left-wing judges, and what we really needed was a fair-minded right wing judge.
No, what we really need is a fair judge, period. I'll define "fair" as one who is impartial and doesn't believe that his job is to use his intuition to legislate from the bench.

If your argument is that the president can do what he wants with immigration and no one can stop him (the boxcar concept) you don't understand that a law passed by Congress is subject to a constitutional test. Every law. If you don't understand that Executive Authority has constitutional limits, I might suggest you check with someone who would know. Check the Constitution on immigration. No mention of who decides who gets in and who stays out.
No shit, Sherlock. All laws are subject to judicial review on constitutional grounds. It's part of the system of checks and balances. Everyone knows that.

The whole debate revolves around whether or not this particular EO is legal and binding. I happen to believe it is.


And when the Supreme Court decides, they will not decide based on Trump's motivation to do what's best for America, nor whether the Congress was right to pass a law giving the president authority over immigration, but on whether one simple EO meets a constitutional test. That's reality.

And they'll base that decision on the text of the EO, not some intuitive "secret intent" theory that doesn't exist in the wording of the order itself. Well, at least a majority will, in my opinion.

I'm not surprised you can't see how focusing on terrorists and making the entry test extremely tough would work and pass constitutional muster. Other than the fact that it's been done successfully before, I don't have a better reason.
Then you might be surprised to know that most of the country's security agencies DON'T think we can adequately vet those who want to come from the countries in question. Again, when you disagree with me, you disagree with many people who are smarter and more qualified than I.


I've never spoken for anyone but myself on this issue. It's apparently another delusion you suffer from.
You said: "Trump, you, everyone had to know there was enough enmity that whatever he did was going to be challenged."

How did you know that I, or anyone, had to know something? I told you that, in fact, I knew no such thing. My guess is that some of the "everyone" you spoke for didn't know that either.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You do arrogance well, just not justification for arrogance. For example, you just said again that this was a Muslim ban, and no amount of common sense and elementary reading and comprehension ability could lead one to that conclusion.

So if it's not a Muslim ban, who is it being banned and why?

And if you say it's an everybody ban, 90-99% of everyone is Muslim, which effectively makes it a Muslim ban. Banning everybody and everybody being Muslim, sort of makes it a Muslim ban, and I really didn't have to dip into my comprehension reserves to figure that out. And if you say it is a terrorist ban, they're all Muslim too. If you are banning terrorists, you can't think of any way to do that without banning everybody, because not everybody can possibly be a terrorist?

Banking on people being too dumb to notice everybody is Muslim probably doesn't work.

[boxcar]

So if it's not a Muslim ban, who is it being banned and why?

Why is not relevant to the EO. Who is, however. Who is being banned are the class of people who occupy or have visas from the six countries listed in the EO. And the president has authority under law to ban ANY CLASS of people he deems necessary.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not true, but it's a nice excuse and a good way to join all the other self-proclaimed martyrs here.

Besides, you love it here. All left-leaners love it here. Here is the only place in your lives where you aren't surrounded by all your other like-minded lefty pals, and you'll actually be able to get down and dirty with people who don't agree with you. Keeps you on your toes.

If you and the other left-leaners hated it so much here, you would have left a long time ago. But something keeps you guys sticking around off-topic. Yup, some of you do go away on your own, but most of you eventually return.

Because you love it here. :jump:

Love might be a little hyperbolic.

I'm a great believer that if you only hang out with people who think and believe like you do, you'll never understand both sides of an issue. You become a comfortable ideologue. I'd guess that most people here spend very little time with those who disagree with them politically.

I'll tell you a funny story. I was doing a workshop and I was selected to debate someone on a particular issue. The catch was I had to argue a point that was totally antithetical to my normal position. I won the debate. The point is that I don't necessarily believe everything I argue with the same level of fervency.

I don't think I'd have ever understood the Trump voter if I hadn't been here, and if there is any hope of winning back the government, you have to understand why you lost in the first place. If I have any conversations with my "like-minded lefty pals" (most of whom are Republicans) it is more likely to be about needing to take the party away from the far left base and get back to the center. I think the liberal nuts are as bad as the far right nuts. I'm not on Facebook, I'm on Twitter but I've never made a political comment there (horses only) and I'm not on any other racing boards. This is where I argue.

At some point it will get boring. I've actually talked to a few people who are in that list of people who left PA. As you might imagine, most of them don't have sweet things to say. The expectation is that eventually you tire of beating your head against a very hard and immovable wall. I have a sense some people disagree with me just because it's me. But, until then, I'll keep being a "liberal" irritant.

[Fager Fan]

So if it's not a Muslim ban, who is it being banned and why?

And if you say it's an everybody ban, 90-99% of everyone is Muslim, which effectively makes it a Muslim ban. Banning everybody and everybody being Muslim, sort of makes it a Muslim ban, and I really didn't have to dip into my comprehension reserves to figure that out. And if you say it is a terrorist ban, they're all Muslim too. If you are banning terrorists, you can't think of any way to do that without banning everybody, because not everybody can possibly be a terrorist?

Banking on people being too dumb to notice everybody is Muslim probably doesn't work.

Ok, let's type this really slow for you.

What does "Muslim ban" mean? A ban.....of.....Muslims......

Are you with me so far?

Are any Muslims allowed in under this EO? Yes.......

You still with me?

Since Muslims are still allowed in, how can it be a Muslim ban? It....... can't..... be......

Is that easy enough for you to understand?

[PaceAdvantage]

I've actually talked to a few people who are in that list of people who left PA. As you might imagine, most of them don't have sweet things to say.That's fine. I accept that fully.

If enough people believe as they do, this place will cease to exist, and that's fine too. I've had a good run.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok, let's type this really slow for you.

What does "Muslim ban" mean? A ban.....of.....Muslims......

Are you with me so far?

Are any Muslims allowed in under this EO? Yes.......

You still with me?

Since Muslims are still allowed in, how can it be a Muslim ban? It....... can't..... be......

Is that easy enough for you to understand?In their mind, if you ban enough people, and they happen to be Muslim, then it is a Muslim ban. Regardless if 80-90% of the world's Muslims are still allowed to enter the USA, it's still a Muslim ban.

Get it now? :lol:

[woodtoo]

So if it's not a Muslim ban, who is it being banned and why?

And if you say it's an everybody ban, 90-99% of everyone is Muslim, which effectively makes it a Muslim ban. Banning everybody and everybody being Muslim, sort of makes it a Muslim ban, and I really didn't have to dip into my comprehension reserves to figure that out. And if you say it is a terrorist ban, they're all Muslim too. If you are banning terrorists, you can't think of any way to do that without banning everybody, because not everybody can possibly be a terrorist?

Banking on people being too dumb to notice everybody is Muslim probably doesn't work.

You cant get past this "Muslim ban" because you are "incorrigible".

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I know I'm not nearly as brilliant as you, but I did read the EO and I don't see it. Again, some other people read it too, and they don't see it either. Oh well, at least I have some smart people who agree with my analysis.


Somehow I think you are being disingenuous when you say you aren't as brilliant as me.

I'll try an analogous situation. Imagine you are a loan officer at a bank. At some point, you draw a line around a particular neighborhood and write an order that simply says the bank will not offer loans to anyone living in that neighborhood because they are considered bad risks. It turns out that area is 95% black. Effectively, you have implemented a policy that discriminates on the basis of color, even though you didn't mention color and used the rationale of risk.

However, you can implement policies at the bank that apply to everyone in every area (20% down payments, no payments more than 25% of gross income, strong valuations of the property) and you have a strong case it is not discrimination. You write a smarter order.

Now I'm sure in your mind it was just business. But it turns out the courts disagreed, as did the Congress. Like I've said, you can't count on people being dumb when implementing policy.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You cant get past this "Muslim ban" because you are "incorrigible".

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Sounds like the Trump playbook.

[Fager Fan]

Somehow I think you are being disingenuous when you say you aren't as brilliant as me.

I'll try an analogous situation. Imagine you are a loan officer at a bank. At some point, you draw a line around a particular neighborhood and write an order that simply says the bank will not offer loans to anyone living in that neighborhood because they are considered bad risks. It turns out that area is 95% black. Effectively, you have implemented a policy that discriminates on the basis of color, even though you didn't mention color and used the rationale of risk.

However, you can implement policies at the bank that apply to everyone in every area (20% down payments, no payments more than 25% of gross income, strong valuations of the property) and you have a strong case it is not discrimination. You write a smarter order.

Now I'm sure in your mind it was just business. But it turns out the courts disagreed, as did the Congress. Like I've said, you can't count on people being dumb when implementing policy.

Halv has it easily explained to him, in "See Spot Run" type of language, yet he ignores it and continues to argue.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ok, let's type this really slow for you.

What does "Muslim ban" mean? A ban.....of.....Muslims......

Are you with me so far?

Are any Muslims allowed in under this EO? Yes.......

You still with me?

Since Muslims are still allowed in, how can it be a Muslim ban? It....... can't..... be......

Is that easy enough for you to understand?

You didn't answer either question. Who are you banning and why?

I understand what you are saying. Your explanation is that if any Muslim from any country is allowed in, it can't be a Muslim ban. And that's the legal argument the Trump people will make.

I'll stay with my same analogy. If you redline a neighborhood, your argument is that it can't be discrimination on the basis of color because it's only black people in that neighborhood, not all black people. And as i've said, the courts have already ruled on that one. What you are having a hard time understanding is that it doesn't have to be every Muslim in the world to be discriminatory.

You know what? When the court decides one of us will gloat. I can wait.

[woodtoo]

Calling you incorrigible is not an attack I'm simply pointing out there is no to
way counter your belief that this is a Muslim ban since you believe a country with 95% Muslim and 5% Christian is a 100% Muslim country.

How can I argue that? Impossible, thus your incorrigibility.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv has it easily explained to him, in "See Spot Run" type of language, yet he ignores it and continues to argue.

At the point I believe you can comprehend why you may not be right I'll stop.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Calling you incorrigible is not an attack I'm simply pointing out there is no
way counter your belief that this is a Muslim ban since you believe a country with 95% Muslim and 5% Christian is a 100% Muslim country.

How can I argue that? Impossible, thus your incorrigibility.

I already used the redlining analogy. The neighborhood didn't have to be 100% black to prove discrimination, nor did you have to discriminate against all black people everywhere. That's settled law. Neither does a country have to be 100% Muslim. It's not incorrigibility. You believe you and your buddies here are absolutely 100% right - speaking of incorrigibility. I don't share that view and I have a thoughtful argument about why. I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule, but I don't think Trump winning is a fait accompli. The fact that you can't see there are two equally valid opposing points I just chalk up to a cognitive problem.

[woodtoo]

You didn't answer either question. Who are you banning and why?

I understand what you are saying. Your explanation is that if any Muslim from any country is allowed in, it can't be a Muslim ban. And that's the legal argument the Trump people will make.

I'll stay with my same analogy. If you redline a neighborhood, your argument is that it can't be discrimination on the basis of color because it's only black people in that neighborhood, not all black people. And as i've said, the courts have already ruled on that one. What you are having a hard time understanding is that it doesn't have to be every Muslim in the world to be discriminatory.

You know what? When the court decides one of us will gloat. I can wait.

It's not a Muslim ban or even a ban at all is it? From what I recall it is a 90 day suspension of all people from certain countries for a good reason,
US citizens despise being blown up or beheaded for being American.

[Fager Fan]

You didn't answer either question. Who are you banning and why?

I understand what you are saying. Your explanation is that if any Muslim from any country is allowed in, it can't be a Muslim ban. And that's the legal argument the Trump people will make.

I'll stay with my same analogy. If you redline a neighborhood, your argument is that it can't be discrimination on the basis of color because it's only black people in that neighborhood, not all black people. And as i've said, the courts have already ruled on that one. What you are having a hard time understanding is that it doesn't have to be every Muslim in the world to be discriminatory.

You know what? When the court decides one of us will gloat. I can wait.

You're talking about re districting, which isn't remotely close to a BAN.

Again, a BAN of something - anything - means ALL of that thing is BANNED. You CANNOT say something is banned if some of it is NOT BANNED.

If you dare to throw out another stupid argument, then I'm going to have to assume you're stupid. Like the mentally ill, stupid doesn't recognize its own stupidity.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You're talking about re districting, which isn't remotely close to a BAN.

Again, a BAN of something - anything - means ALL of that thing is BANNED. You CANNOT say something is banned if some of it is NOT BANNED.

If you dare to throw out another stupid argument, then I'm going to have to assume you're stupid. Like the mentally ill, stupid doesn't recognize its own stupidity.

The correct term is redlining. You apparently didn't google that one correctly. It was a ban on loans to a certain area. And the analogy works because the policy didn't have to apply to all black people, nor does the redline have to be an area exclusively black. Same as the EO. It doesn't have to apply to only Muslims or all Muslims. It's analogous, meaning something that is similar in significant respects. I certainly can't help your inability to understand that.

You've proven on multiple occasions you only have a google knowledge of most things. You're hardly an intellectual challenge on any issue. The fact that you can't understand both sides of the argument, or the analogy, substantiates the conclusion that you only have ideology, not intellect. Stupid means more than disagreement. I understand your argument, I expect that is the argument that Trump will make. You clearly didn't understand the case law cited in the TRO. Again, not unexpected. Everyone is banned, and most of everyone is Muslim. If the reason is to stop radical Islamic terrorism, then it is clear that the only way Trump sees to do that is to ban all Muslims. Certainly banning the Christians is irrelevant.

[Fager Fan]

The correct term is redlining. It was a ban on loans to a certain area. And the analogy works because the policy didn't have to apply to all black people, nor does the redline have to be an area exclusively black. Same as the EO. It doesn't have to apply to only Muslims or all Muslims.

You've proven on multiple occasions you only have a google knowledge of most things. You're hardly an intellectual challenge on any issue. The fact that you can't understand both sides of the argument, or the analogy, substantiates the conclusion that you only have ideology, not intellect.


Idiot doesn't know that a finding of discrimination doesn't require ALL of a segment of a population being discriminated against, whereas a ban of something is a ban of ALL of that something.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Idiot doesn't know that a finding of discrimination doesn't require ALL of a segment of a population being discriminated against, whereas a ban of something is a ban of ALL of that something.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

So you know that the judge granted the TRO on the basis that the plaintiffs would likely prevail on the basis of violating the establishment clause in the Constitution, right? Discrimination on the basis of religion. So this idiot understands that the TRO was related to discrimination.

Calling it at a Muslim ban is a convenience, and is at least 90% true in every country. Undoubtedly it is a ban with regard to the people in the respective countries. All of the people, and especially Muslims. They are at least temporarily banned from entering the U.S., and the judge understood the motivation behind the ban to be the restriction of all Muslims from entering the country. I've mentioned this, but Trump originally offered to move non-Muslims from those countries to the top of the list because he believed they were third class citizens in those countries. You can't have your head stuck so far up Trump's ass that you are completely unaware of what the EO was meant to accomplish. It was meant to keep terrorists out of the country by banning the group they are part of (Muslims) from entering, unless you think the non-Muslims also contain terrorists. It was targeted at Muslims, regardless of the absence of the word Muslim in the second EO. I'm absolutely puzzled you don't see that. I understand it perfectly. I simply believe there are two arguments that will be put forward. I'm not willing to discard one of those arguments simply because you have become convinced yours is the only right conclusion. And I'm not sure you are correct that moderates won't buy the argument proffered by the judge.

Usually when the less capable run out of legitimate arguments they resort to name calling. Outside the safety of PA, I don't imagine you'd fare very well. Being an ideologue doesn't make you smart. Doesn't make you right either. Instead of name-calling, how about you try to understand how an alternative argument might be legitimate, even if you think it is wrong.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
So if it's not a Muslim ban, who is it being banned and why"

Clearly you are not that ignorant.:rolleyes:

[Clocker]

So you know that the judge granted the TRO on the basis that the plaintiffs would likely prevail on the basis of violating the establishment clause in the Constitution, right?


SCOTUS has a test for violations of that clause. It's called the Lemon Test.

From Wiki:



The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[3] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:


The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why did that Harvard Law graduate judge not support his position by citing that test and showing how the order failed? I have heard no opponent of the order cite the test either, all the while claiming that the order violates the establishment clause.

There is no doubt in my mind that Steve Bannon's finger prints are all over this order. His primary goal is a nationalist society based on Judeo-Christian principles. But the order doesn't say that, and I would be curious to hear a legal argument as to how it violates any of the 3 prongs of the Lemon Test. And it is my understanding from what I have seen in the media that the judge ruled, not on the language of the order, but on the words of Trump speaking in public, mostly pre-election. In short, it appears that the judge imputed motive into the order from external sources.

[boxcar]

I already used the redlining analogy. The neighborhood didn't have to be 100% black to prove discrimination, nor did you have to discriminate against all black people everywhere. That's settled law. Neither does a country have to be 100% Muslim. It's not incorrigibility. You believe you and your buddies here are absolutely 100% right - speaking of incorrigibility. I don't share that view and I have a thoughtful argument about why. I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule, but I don't think Trump winning is a fait accompli. The fact that you can't see there are two equally valid opposing points I just chalk up to a cognitive problem.

'scuse me, sir...but I have a question about your analogy. Would you, please, define for us the term "neighborhood"? What do you mean by it?

[davew]

You didn't answer either question. Who are you banning and why?

I understand what you are saying. Your explanation is that if any Muslim from any country is allowed in, it can't be a Muslim ban. And that's the legal argument the Trump people will make.

I'll stay with my same analogy. If you redline a neighborhood, your argument is that it can't be discrimination on the basis of color because it's only black people in that neighborhood, not all black people. And as i've said, the courts have already ruled on that one. What you are having a hard time understanding is that it doesn't have to be every Muslim in the world to be discriminatory.

You know what? When the court decides one of us will gloat. I can wait.

They are also 'temporary' banning the Christians (that haven't been killed by the Muslims and are still live) from the 5 countries listed. So how can it be a Muslim ban?

[Tom]

It's not a Muslim ban or even a ban at all is it? From what I recall it is a 90 day suspension of all people from certain countries for a good reason,
US citizens despise being blown up or beheaded for being American.

Oh sure.
Sink to using truth and reality in an argument with a lib.
That is not nice.

[EasyGoer89]

Wouldn't this be a more accurate thread title if you replaced 'Hawaii judge' with Obama?

[woodtoo]

Wouldn't this be a more accurate thread title if you replaced 'Hawaii judge' with Obama?

How so? I've heard no mention of him.

[Track Collector]

I'll try an analogous situation. Imagine you are a loan officer at a bank. At some point, you draw a line around a particular neighborhood and write an order that simply says the bank will not offer loans to anyone living in that neighborhood because they are considered bad risks. It turns out that area is 95% black. Effectively, you have implemented a policy that discriminates on the basis of color, even though you didn't mention color and used the rationale of risk.

However, you can implement policies at the bank that apply to everyone in every area (20% down payments, no payments more than 25% of gross income, strong valuations of the property) and you have a strong case it is not discrimination. You write a smarter order.

Yes, this would be a much better way for banks to limit risks and at the same time not fuel speculation regarding discrimination.

The problem is, today we do not "currently" have a good vetting process when folks want to come in to our country. So the Trump solution is a TEMPORARY ban on all folks from a group of specific (high risk) COUNTRIES, until such a time is reached that we develop an improved and effective vetting process.

So then the only real issue would seem to be do we or do we not have a ban while working on that "improved" vetting process. In the case of the bank (IF they did not have a better solution), the risk to the bank would be financial. It could be minor, or in the very worst case it could lead to bankruptcy. With immigration the risk is to Public Safety, in which case it is much better to enact a legal ban WHILE working on an improved vetting process.

For the record, I do not see the current ban on people from at-risk COUNTRIES as a Muslim ban, despite efforts of others to interpret it that way. I also agree that there is no bullet-proof EO that can be written that will prevent an activist judge from ruling against it because the judge will base their "rulings" on subjectivity/intent rather than the law.

[PaceAdvantage]

Idiot doesn't know that a finding of discrimination doesn't require ALL of a segment of a population being discriminated against, whereas a ban of something is a ban of ALL of that something.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?I would have deleted this if Halv hadn't already gone and replied to it with a quote.

Your name calling is completely unjustified and I can't figure out for the life of me why you think it's warranted.

If you feel intimidated by Halv, just say so and move on. Only an idiot without a comeback resorts to such things as your above quote. :pound:

[woodtoo]

30,496 deadly Islamic Terror attacks since 9/11/1.
Deadly attack in London today 2 dead many injured after Terrorist drives his peace truck onto sidewalk on Westminster Bridge then uses love knife to attack Policeman, shot dead...I hope.

[davew]

Wouldn't this be a more accurate thread title if you replaced 'Hawaii judge' with Obama?

No, they are different people. Derrick Watson was appointed by 0bama and went to Harvard Law at the same time. Surely 0bama wouldn't have talked to him about filing injunction.....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/derrick-watson-5-things-to-know/index.html

[Fager Fan]

I would have deleted this if Halv hadn't already gone and replied to it with a quote.

Your name calling is completely unjustified and I can't figure out for the life of me why you think it's warranted.

If you feel intimidated by Halv, just say so and move on. Only an idiot without a comeback resorts to such things as your above quote. :pound:

Are you kidding me? Have you read the posts where Halv has blatantly called individual posters here stupid or lacking cognitive abilities and so forth, and called other posters as a group similar? And you're going to slap my hand with a ruler? Be consistent. Slap Halv's hands, else I'm going to call you on it for just picking on one of my posts. I've seen you insult people here as well, just for the record.

[PaceAdvantage]

They say it's good to be king, don't they?

And I'm pretty sure nobody would confuse me and halv as best buddies around here, so don't go jumping completely off the reality cliff.

[FantasticDan]

Federal Appeals court upholds block on Trump travel ban:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/

[PaceAdvantage]

Federal Appeals court upholds block on Trump travel ban:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/I think Trump should just wash his hands and let EVERYONE who wants to, come into the country unfettered. Hell, they could even bring whomever and WHATEVER they want with them.

That's what I would do if I were him. I'm dead serious too. Be glad you don't have me as POTUS. :lol:

[classhandicapper]

If I say I want to ban NBA basketball players from coming to my country and then I selectively only ban players from teams that I know have a history of being disruptive in the past, it should be obvious to everyone that in the first case I was speaking generically and the second case I refined my criteria to specifics.

The only thing they should be looking at is whether I have a right to ban players from disruptive teams because I am obviously not banning all NBA players nor did I ever intend to do that.

As a lay person when it come to law, it's hard for me to fathom decisions like these. The way I see you either have to be a moron or not give a shit about anything other than getting what you want.

[classhandicapper]

I think Trump should just wash his hands and let EVERYONE who wants to, come into the country unfettered. Hell, they could even bring whomever and WHATEVER they want with them.

That's what I would do if I were him. I'm dead serious too. Be glad you don't have me as POTUS. :lol:

That would be fine as long as they all settled in the cities where the politicians and judges that want them so badly live and work. Then when they start recruiting, get recruited, etc.. the people that made the decisions are more likely to suffer the consequences.

[Clocker]

Federal Appeals court upholds block on Trump travel ban:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/

The court ruled that the intent of the ban was religious discrimination. It based this on Trump's many remarks on the subject in his campaign speeches.

What is this country coming to when a politician can be held accountable for his campaign promises? :eek:

[JustRalph]

The court ruled that the intent of the ban was religious discrimination. It based this on Trump's many remarks on the subject in his campaign speeches.

What is this country coming to when a politician can be held accountable for his campaign promises? :eek:

The Supremes aren't going to care. Time is on Trump's side. I don't trust John Roberts, but the previous case law is on Trump's side

[Clocker]

The Supremes aren't going to care. Time is on Trump's side. I don't trust John Roberts, but the previous case law is on Trump's side

The law is on his side, and SCOTUS should give no consideration to stump speeches. From the dissenting minority opinion in this case:
In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited. Mandel, Fiallo, and Din have for decades been entirely clear that courts are not free to look behind these sorts of exercises of executive discretion in search of circumstantial evidence of alleged bad faith. The majority, now for the first time, rejects these holdings in favor of its politically desired outcome.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447995/fourth-circuit-travel-ban-ruling-distorts-law-trump
That, of course, means nothing with this court.

I assume the 4th Circuit’s decision will ultimately be overturned in the Supreme Court, and Trump’s travel order will be upheld. However, as Steve pointed out during our Power Line Live event last night, there is a risk that Anthony Kennedy might decide to go out in a blaze of liberal glory, establishing previously unknown rights on behalf of Yemenis, Iranians, Syrians and so on. Unfortunately, we can assume that the four Democratic Party justices will vote as their party wants, regardless of how irrational that position may be.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/the-4th-circuits-travel-ban-decision-an-affront-to-the-rule-of-law.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/the-4th-circuits-travel-ban-decision-an-affront-to-the-rule-of-law.php)

[Tom]

I think Trump should halt immigrations by EVERYONE, every country, everywhere.

No one can say that is targeting anyone.
We can get along just fine without anyone else ever coming here.

I agree with Ralph - Roberts is a slimy weasel and cannot be trusted.

[incoming]

I think Trump should halt immigrations by EVERYONE, every country, everywhere.

No one can say that is targeting anyone.
We can get along just fine without anyone else ever coming here.

I agree with Ralph - Roberts is a slimy weasel and cannot be trusted.

I disagreed with Judge Robert's ruling... in retrospect what would our healthcare look like today if he had blocked ACA ...single payer? Would the erosion of the Democrat Party continued? Would DT every been elected president?

Maybe...just maybe he had great insight and trusted the American people to make the right decision. In his defense he called a spade a spade....it was a tax....another big lie by the Obama administration.:headbanger:

[Tom]

In his defense he called a spade a spade..

No, he called in illegal mandate a tax.
Which it clearly was not.

Roberts represents everything bad in the justice system - judge who think they are gods and try to bypass the legislature.

Roberts should be removed from the court. We do not need anyone on the bench with such a lack of competence and integrity.

[fast4522]

Right about the time when the Supreme Court spanks the 4th & 9th circuit for being off the wall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's face will hit the floor. This is the time she will be all done and ready for retirement in her own mind. She will see herself as not being relevant and quit, this is coming faster than people see it and will mark in time the turning point when many on the left completely quit. This will change these united States for decades, not only will RBG be done but another on the Supreme Court will want to retire in the same year. I can not wait to see the day here at Pace Advantage when so many recoil because there is NO longer any hope for their agenda.

[incoming]

No, he called in illegal mandate a tax.
Which it clearly was not.

Roberts represents everything bad in the justice system - judge who think they are gods and try to bypass the legislature.

Roberts should be removed from the court. We do not need anyone on the bench with such a lack of competence and integrity.

Won't wade in the swamp of constitutional law. The point that I was trying to emphasize....Judge Roberts interpretation of ACA probably started the demise of the new Democrat Party. The tactic and lies they chose to rewrite a popular healthcare plan, that only needed a few tweaks, was unprecedented in most people memory. Judge Roberts chose to let the American people wallow in that monstrosity of a failure for six years and they revolted. Not only changing the landscape of the Democrat Party but also the Republican Party. Enter President Donald Trump....the draining of the swamp has begun, ugly ain't it. Of course, using "Dims Logic" the democrats blame the Russians:lol::pound: Lets see them maneuver around another monstrosity.:popcorn::popcorn:

[Tom]

The risk of draining the swamp is find out that it is all swamp.

[incoming]

The risk of draining the swamp is find out that it is all swamp.

Sadly :(:( ....You nailed another one.....