My philosophy is everyone leave everyone else the fuck alone. That's coexisting right?
The Fundies sell the gays cake. The gays sell the Fundies, uh, rainbow tye-dye shirts (or whatever). Keep your personal shit to yourself. Golden rule and all that.
Ahhh... I'm not gay but I like wearing tie dye. Not fair...
Right, and all gays and fundies should both sell it to you. Do you pass the human being check? Do you have cash? Sold
It's just I like tie dye because I like the colors and think it looks good. I just don't want to be labelled as a "Hippie" or LGBT type.
Or how my favorite color happens to be purble but I don't wear it much because it's not a "manly" color.
My philosophy is everyone leave everyone else the fuck alone. That's coexisting right?
The Fundies sell the gays cake. The gays sell the Fundies, uh, rainbow tye-dye shirts (or whatever). Keep your personal shit to yourself. Golden rule and all that.
Ahhh... I'm not gay but I like wearing tie dye. Not fair...
Right, and all gays and fundies should both sell it to you. Do you pass the human being check? Do you have cash? Sold
It's just I like tie dye because I like the colors and think it looks good. I just don't want to be labelled as a "Hippie" or LGBT type.
Or how my favorite color happens to be purble but I don't wear it much because it's not a "manly" color.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The current visa holders aspect might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
A president cannot expand their own powers. And are you really arguing that a Supreme Court decision on presidential powers made Donald Trump decide to ban Muslims? The Supreme Court will have to decide again on this to determine of his ban was about safety from all 0 of those killings by terrorist refugees of those countries or if it was about nationality and religion.
Its not a muslim ban.
If it were a muslim ban the the 5 most populated muslim countries would be on the list. It was a 120 day moratorium on people coming from 7 countries targeted and labeled by the obama administration themselves. Those countries dont really even have a functioning govt to keep track of their own citizens.
I hate having to defend this president because I dont really like him, but the complaining on every little thing is fucking annoying and its turning the rest of the country off too. Basically leftists are getting donald trump elected to a second term as we speak.
If you actually read what wrote before its about the US vs Arizona suit. The obama administration sued the state of arizona for trying to enfore the federal immigration laws against the feds orders. Courts set precedent in that case for powers to be with the federal govt on immigration law. This precedent in part allowed trump not to be contested on this. Some judges are trying, but failing
Its completely constitutional anyway. Im not defending the policy itself. Im saying its legal and constitutional. And its totaly overblown. You liberals and leftists remember how annoying people could get during obamas presidency about policy? Your party is 10 fold. Everyone wants him to fail and wont even listen to reason. Its disgusting.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Its not a ban on green card holders. All the few green card holders that were held up were sent on their way. Been said repeatedly this doesnt affect green card holders going forward.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Its not a ban on green card holders. All the few green card holders that were held up were sent on their way. Been said repeatedly this doesnt affect green card holders going forward.
The EO was unclear and it was enforced that way initially, so I think the court will still rule on that aspect. I agree with you as it pertains to future applicants, especially as Congress has codified the President's power to do so, but it's a closer call for active visa holders. Could go either way, though my money would be on Trump prevailing.
To go back to your "politicized" comment, though, today we had two judges rule on this. First, appointed by a democrat, ruled in favor of Trump. Second, appointed by Bush, ruled against him. It's not really a clear-cut case.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
Then you have nothing to worry about since the Supreme Court is predominately conservative as soon as Trump gets his way on his latest nomination.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
It would be hard to argue the EO is a Muslim ban if the list of countries weren't exclusively Muslim-majority. The EO doesn't need to mention Muslims or Islam; the list of affected countries and EO's language essentially blocks Muslim, and only Muslims, from entering the US.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
"This is when Europe's looking down the barrel of fascism -- the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis. I mean you're looking at fascism, you're looking at communism. And to say that -- what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, 'Look, it's pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there's something actually much darker. And that is Islam."
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
"This is when Europe's looking down the barrel of fascism -- the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis. I mean you're looking at fascism, you're looking at communism. And to say that -- what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, 'Look, it's pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there's something actually much darker. And that is Islam."
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
Just saying the EO is over after 120 days so we will have to wait and see what is actually done
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
Liberals don’t understand what the word bully means anymore. Assume your talking about the tweet below as I cant find another one...you can say calling him a so-called judge is not presidential. But to say that is bullying is BEYOND comical.
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
Like quest said a couple of pages ago. Shoes on the other foot now. Libs didn’t have a problem when Obama was in charge doing whatever he wanted.
"This is when Europe's looking down the barrel of fascism -- the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis. I mean you're looking at fascism, you're looking at communism. And to say that -- what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, 'Look, it's pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there's something actually much darker. And that is Islam."
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
Originally posted by: ExplodedHamster
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
Sorry but the POTUS is clearly in the wrong here. He made hate-infused campaign speeches against Hispanics and Muslims, surrounded himself with cabinet members and appointees who shared similar political viewpoints as himself, and is now passing Executive Orders right and left, some of which are blatant disregard to the US constitution.
It is the court's sworn duty to uphold the law and the constitution, so I feel the best way for this to end is for the justices to issue a swift and final ruling against such EOs, and send a very clear message to POTUS that he is not above the law and the constitution as written and ammended by our forefathers.
If the Supreme Court decides to vote in favor of party lines and not in good conscience protect the constitution they were sworn to uphold, then I have officially lost faith in the government. The system of checks and balances exists for the very explicit reason to prevent the type of abuse of powers the current POTUS is trying to pull.
For this nation to be successful, for the people, by the people, the SC must send a clear and concise message that said abuses of power will not be tolerated.
Was listening to a discussion on this. This washington judge is starting to get exposed. He was targeted to rule on this since one of his personal causes is refugees.
Described as a judge that feels like the court is to help people rather than interpret the law.
In one case in seattle involving the police department he declared that black lives matter.
This judge was used specifically. You can say hes a bush appointee all you want. Well guess what, bush sucked and shouldnt be a republicsn gauge on anything.
This judge cited no law in his decision. Just blanket constitution. This judge sounds like a social justice warrior.
and explodedhamster have we already forgotten when obama during the state of the union attacking the supreme court to their face on their decision on citizens united. A president being vocal against a judge isnt new. Democrats raved and cheered at obamas attacking of the supreme court. Not saying any of it is right. Its just so hypocritical.
I agree that this is not a problem unique to one religion; though my issue is when the extremists tell me that I need to give up my views in order to "Coexist"
Which views are you being asked to abandon to coexist?
Independent thought, freedom from paying lip-service to get along, that sort of thing. If it's any indicator of my views I'm currently watching the Captain Harlock original tv series; it's speculative but really a fantastic portrayal of apathy brought on by life under a world government. It's got Mount Rushmore relocated to a garbage dump to make room for housing developments-- check it out if you'd like.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
With Trump Tower basically on lock down? Move her tail into the whitehouse already. The security snafu in New York is only exacerbating the traffic problems since the whole block has armed guards and security checkpoints. That's what happens when you elect a billionare into office: his family likely gets worse off accomodations in the White House than they do now staying in Trump Tower.
IMO, Melania is being extremely selfish. Everyone in the First Family has to make sacrifices. Barron can get a private tutor in the White House for all I care.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
No way of justifying it, other than maybe she might give in after the school year. But Sasha Obama has some explaining to do too. She gets secret service detail until she turns 16 next year. Also, the currently living past presidents and their wives get eternal secret sevice detail as well, well at least until they pass away anyway.
Was listening to a discussion on this. This washington judge is starting to get exposed. He was targeted to rule on this since one of his personal causes is refugees.
Described as a judge that feels like the court is to help people rather than interpret the law.
In one case in seattle involving the police department he declared that black lives matter.
This judge was used specifically. You can say hes a bush appointee all you want. Well guess what, bush sucked and shouldnt be a republicsn gauge on anything.
This judge cited no law in his decision. Just blanket constitution. This judge sounds like a social justice warrior.
and explodedhamster have we already forgotten when obama during the state of the union attacking the supreme court to their face on their decision on citizens united. A president being vocal against a judge isnt new. Democrats raved and cheered at obamas attacking of the supreme court. Not saying any of it is right. Its just so hypocritical.
We are in an era of false equivalencies. There is a difference between criticizing and disagreeing with a court's ruling and questioning the legitimacy of a judge who was confirmed 99-0 by Congress. Conflating this with what Obama did is absurd.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
When arch brings out the harsh stuff, it means game over
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.
Comments
My philosophy is everyone leave everyone else the fuck alone. That's coexisting right?
The Fundies sell the gays cake. The gays sell the Fundies, uh, rainbow tye-dye shirts (or whatever). Keep your personal shit to yourself. Golden rule and all that.
Ahhh... I'm not gay but I like wearing tie dye. Not fair...
Right, and all gays and fundies should both sell it to you. Do you pass the human being check? Do you have cash? Sold
It's just I like tie dye because I like the colors and think it looks good. I just don't want to be labelled as a "Hippie" or LGBT type.
Or how my favorite color happens to be purble but I don't wear it much because it's not a "manly" color.
Strawman argument but still...
My philosophy is everyone leave everyone else the fuck alone. That's coexisting right?
The Fundies sell the gays cake. The gays sell the Fundies, uh, rainbow tye-dye shirts (or whatever). Keep your personal shit to yourself. Golden rule and all that.
Ahhh... I'm not gay but I like wearing tie dye. Not fair...
Right, and all gays and fundies should both sell it to you. Do you pass the human being check? Do you have cash? Sold
It's just I like tie dye because I like the colors and think it looks good. I just don't want to be labelled as a "Hippie" or LGBT type.
Or how my favorite color happens to be purble but I don't wear it much because it's not a "manly" color.
Strawman argument but still...
You're not getting how this works...
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The current visa holders aspect might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
A president cannot expand their own powers. And are you really arguing that a Supreme Court decision on presidential powers made Donald Trump decide to ban Muslims? The Supreme Court will have to decide again on this to determine of his ban was about safety from all 0 of those killings by terrorist refugees of those countries or if it was about nationality and religion.
Its not a muslim ban.
If it were a muslim ban the the 5 most populated muslim countries would be on the list. It was a 120 day moratorium on people coming from 7 countries targeted and labeled by the obama administration themselves. Those countries dont really even have a functioning govt to keep track of their own citizens.
I hate having to defend this president because I dont really like him, but the complaining on every little thing is fucking annoying and its turning the rest of the country off too. Basically leftists are getting donald trump elected to a second term as we speak.
If you actually read what wrote before its about the US vs Arizona suit. The obama administration sued the state of arizona for trying to enfore the federal immigration laws against the feds orders. Courts set precedent in that case for powers to be with the federal govt on immigration law. This precedent in part allowed trump not to be contested on this. Some judges are trying, but failing
Its completely constitutional anyway. Im not defending the policy itself. Im saying its legal and constitutional. And its totaly overblown. You liberals and leftists remember how annoying people could get during obamas presidency about policy? Your party is 10 fold. Everyone wants him to fail and wont even listen to reason. Its disgusting.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Its not a ban on green card holders. All the few green card holders that were held up were sent on their way. Been said repeatedly this doesnt affect green card holders going forward.
Article from 2 days ago.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-green-card-holders-no-longer-covered-by-trump-executive-order-234505
they tweaked and clarified the moratorium. Ive said since the beginning it was rolled out poorly. But its been straightened out.
Federal Judge (Bush appointee) orders a TRO on Trump's travel ban, which CBP is going to enforce. Trump will be up until 4 AM tweeting tonight.
This is going to be contentious and it's going to fly up the ranks quickly. I think this ends with it being declared unconstitutional as it pertains to Green Card holders and LPRs, possibly current visa holders, with Trump EO prevailing for future applicants. The last point might actually end 4-4 with the current court, which would mean lower court rule stands.
There is no part of this thats unconstitutional. If deemed so by some lower court decision , then I have lost faith in our judicial system at interpreting the law. The judicial branch is too damn politicized.
Uhhh, this was a Bush appointee. And, with all due respect, I'm wondering how much legal training you have to suggest a travel ban on green card holders is "clearly constitutional." That point may go 8-0 against Trump.
Its not a ban on green card holders. All the few green card holders that were held up were sent on their way. Been said repeatedly this doesnt affect green card holders going forward.
The EO was unclear and it was enforced that way initially, so I think the court will still rule on that aspect. I agree with you as it pertains to future applicants, especially as Congress has codified the President's power to do so, but it's a closer call for active visa holders. Could go either way, though my money would be on Trump prevailing.
To go back to your "politicized" comment, though, today we had two judges rule on this. First, appointed by a democrat, ruled in favor of Trump. Second, appointed by Bush, ruled against him. It's not really a clear-cut case.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
Then you have nothing to worry about since the Supreme Court is predominately conservative as soon as Trump gets his way on his latest nomination.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
It would be hard to argue the EO is a Muslim ban if the list of countries weren't exclusively Muslim-majority. The EO doesn't need to mention Muslims or Islam; the list of affected countries and EO's language essentially blocks Muslim, and only Muslims, from entering the US.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
"This is when Europe's looking down the barrel of fascism -- the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis. I mean you're looking at fascism, you're looking at communism. And to say that -- what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, 'Look, it's pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there's something actually much darker. And that is Islam."
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
Just saying the EO is over after 120 days so we will have to wait and see what is actually done
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
When you ban all people from predominately Muslim countries and then say you will give precedence to Christians after constantly saying you're going to ban Muslims, it's a Muslim ban, even if it is not all Muslims. The courts will look at intent regardless of what the White House may say. The excuse of safety does not pass the smell test. Like I said, this will end up at the Supreme Court and they will decide which of us is right.
where in the EO does it mention islam or muslim? thats what the court will look at. If you are looking at intent, then why are the 5 most populated muslim countries not on the list?
Well thats what they should look at. But of course the supreme court will vote party lines for some strange reason
No, a court should not look only for the word "Muslim," it should take the document in its entirity and make a determination of the intent and affect of it. I mean you actually had Rudy Guilliani say on live TV that Trump reached out and asked him how he could ban Muslims without using those exact words.
The bigger question from a legal standpoint is does this even matter. I'm not entirely sure it's illegal for the President to blanket discriminate against non-citizens, particularly given what's codified.
Doesn't make Trump any less slimy for not admitting what he's doing, but that's another story.
So guiliani cant just be talking out his ass? some misscomunication when talking about it couldnt have happened? Now you people listen to rudy G?
This is only 120 days. Dont see how thats banning muslims. In 4 months what happens?
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
Liberals don’t understand what the word bully means anymore. Assume your talking about the tweet below as I cant find another one...you can say calling him a so-called judge is not presidential. But to say that is bullying is BEYOND comical.
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
Like quest said a couple of pages ago. Shoes on the other foot now. Libs didn’t have a problem when Obama was in charge doing whatever he wanted.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
"This is when Europe's looking down the barrel of fascism -- the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis. I mean you're looking at fascism, you're looking at communism. And to say that -- what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, 'Look, it's pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there's something actually much darker. And that is Islam."
These are the words of Chief Advisor to Trump. He is essentially calling the entire religion of Islam worse than Nazis. You think they intend to end this after 120 days?
I can take everything I know about Trump, his views, and his policies and come to a conclusion. You can tout the 120 days things all you want, but this is a man who called for the ban of ALL MUSLIMS from the country at one point during his campaign and is taking advice from a clearly demonstrated white nationalist and Islamophobe. There is absolutely nothing this man or his administration has put forth that would make me think the stance will soften within 120; in fact, I would bet it's expanded, if anything. And, yes, I do believe Rudy G, because he and Trump are close and he was one of Trump's top mouthpieces throughout his entire campaign.
Also, predictably, our president took to Twitter last night to bully the federal judge who gave the order.
Sorry but the POTUS is clearly in the wrong here. He made hate-infused campaign speeches against Hispanics and Muslims, surrounded himself with cabinet members and appointees who shared similar political viewpoints as himself, and is now passing Executive Orders right and left, some of which are blatant disregard to the US constitution.
It is the court's sworn duty to uphold the law and the constitution, so I feel the best way for this to end is for the justices to issue a swift and final ruling against such EOs, and send a very clear message to POTUS that he is not above the law and the constitution as written and ammended by our forefathers.
If the Supreme Court decides to vote in favor of party lines and not in good conscience protect the constitution they were sworn to uphold, then I have officially lost faith in the government. The system of checks and balances exists for the very explicit reason to prevent the type of abuse of powers the current POTUS is trying to pull.
For this nation to be successful, for the people, by the people, the SC must send a clear and concise message that said abuses of power will not be tolerated.
Non visa or green card holders and non citizens that are not on US soil are not protected under our constitution. Its that simple.
Described as a judge that feels like the court is to help people rather than interpret the law.
In one case in seattle involving the police department he declared that black lives matter.
This judge was used specifically. You can say hes a bush appointee all you want. Well guess what, bush sucked and shouldnt be a republicsn gauge on anything.
This judge cited no law in his decision. Just blanket constitution. This judge sounds like a social justice warrior.
and explodedhamster have we already forgotten when obama during the state of the union attacking the supreme court to their face on their decision on citizens united. A president being vocal against a judge isnt new. Democrats raved and cheered at obamas attacking of the supreme court. Not saying any of it is right. Its just so hypocritical.
I agree that this is not a problem unique to one religion; though my issue is when the extremists tell me that I need to give up my views in order to "Coexist"
Which views are you being asked to abandon to coexist?
Independent thought, freedom from paying lip-service to get along, that sort of thing. If it's any indicator of my views I'm currently watching the Captain Harlock original tv series; it's speculative but really a fantastic portrayal of apathy brought on by life under a world government. It's got Mount Rushmore relocated to a garbage dump to make room for housing developments-- check it out if you'd like.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
With Trump Tower basically on lock down? Move her tail into the whitehouse already. The security snafu in New York is only exacerbating the traffic problems since the whole block has armed guards and security checkpoints. That's what happens when you elect a billionare into office: his family likely gets worse off accomodations in the White House than they do now staying in Trump Tower.
IMO, Melania is being extremely selfish. Everyone in the First Family has to make sacrifices. Barron can get a private tutor in the White House for all I care.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
No way of justifying it, other than maybe she might give in after the school year. But Sasha Obama has some explaining to do too. She gets secret service detail until she turns 16 next year. Also, the currently living past presidents and their wives get eternal secret sevice detail as well, well at least until they pass away anyway.
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Was listening to a discussion on this. This washington judge is starting to get exposed. He was targeted to rule on this since one of his personal causes is refugees.
Described as a judge that feels like the court is to help people rather than interpret the law.
In one case in seattle involving the police department he declared that black lives matter.
This judge was used specifically. You can say hes a bush appointee all you want. Well guess what, bush sucked and shouldnt be a republicsn gauge on anything.
This judge cited no law in his decision. Just blanket constitution. This judge sounds like a social justice warrior.
and explodedhamster have we already forgotten when obama during the state of the union attacking the supreme court to their face on their decision on citizens united. A president being vocal against a judge isnt new. Democrats raved and cheered at obamas attacking of the supreme court. Not saying any of it is right. Its just so hypocritical.
We are in an era of false equivalencies. There is a difference between criticizing and disagreeing with a court's ruling and questioning the legitimacy of a judge who was confirmed 99-0 by Congress. Conflating this with what Obama did is absurd.
So any of you Trump lovers want to weigh in on justifying the expense of providing security for Melania in NYC as a burden of the tax payer with no apparent upper limit?
When arch brings out the harsh stuff, it means game over
Just strange to me how one random judge can dictate policy on the entire country.
Then you have another judge rule it constitutional. So why do we listen to one but not the other.
We are being run now by the vocal minority whether you agree with the moratorium or not.
that washington judge just created a clusterfuck. Good job bro.
Sounds like you want a king or something. The Consitution was actually created, in part, to protect minorty parties. Who do you think is supposed
to check the Executive and Legislative branches if they are unified?
Exactly. System of checks and balances. The Excecutive branch executes (carries out) the law, the Legislative branch legislates (writes) the law, and the Judicial branch judges (interprets) the law. Time and time again the three branches of the Federal government work to keep each other in check and prevent any one branch from overreaching their authority.