Id argue trump is pretty damn moderate. His trade policy sides with bernie sanders.
Trump is a protectionist and more of sn isolationist.
He wants to work on infrastructure and try to get a bipartisan bill on that.
Hes on the side of republicans with less govt regulation tax reform.
As far as social issues trump is pretty neutral. Like ive said before hes the firstpresident to take office that was fine with gay marraige. Hes pro life so hes republican on that
But i mean its remarkable democrats despise this guy on every little thing. Hes the most liberal republican ever elected.
Maybe the most liberal circuit in the country. Judge was handpicked so the appeal would be heard in 9th circuit san fran court who gets its decisions routinely overturned. Supreme court is the next step which if party lines vote 4-4 goes back to sppeals court decision.
Well played leftists. Well played.
This EO is clearly constitutional whether you agree with it or not. The executive branch has broad authority in immigration.
^ Sexist O wait she’s a rep not a dem so that can't apply can it???
Dems changed the rules to benefit them when they had power. Now simply majority is good enough.
Dude WTF are you even talking about? I could care less if she is a woman or not. And i am not saying anyone cheated to get her in or complaining about the system. It is the simple fact she is a moron that i don't like about this.
Stop making broad assumptions, it makes you look bad. And heads up, i am not even a Democrat lol. I didn't vote for Obama either. Get REKT son.
^ Sexist O wait she’s a rep not a dem so that can't apply can it???
Dems changed the rules to benefit them when they had power. Now simply majority is good enough.
Dude WTF are you even talking about? I could care less if she is a woman or not. And i am not saying anyone cheated to get her in or complaining about the system. It is the simple fact she is a moron that i don't like about this.
Stop making broad assumptions, it makes you look bad. And heads up, i am not even a Democrat lol. I didn't vote for Obama either. Get REKT son.
Yeah i realized after you were joking with me lol sorry for jumping the gun on you dude.
I just can't believe she got in. I mean i believe it. I just wish someone who had a little more experience and wasn't an idiot got the job. Regardless of whether you like Trump or not, are a D or R, she is not a good choice IMO.
Yeah i realized after you were joking with me lol sorry for jumping the gun on you dude.
I just can't believe she got in. I mean i believe it. I just wish someone who had a little more experience and wasn't an idiot got the job. Regardless of whether you like Trump or not, are a D or R, she is not a good choice IMO.
Now in the event of a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court (which looks more and more unlikely the longer this drags out) it will fall back on the appeals court decision for a stay on the ban and a win for justice. This sends a clear and concise message that POTUS is not above the law...
Nope. Sends a clear and concise message the courts are political. This was planned out. To drag this out till it doesnt matter snd the 120 days have passed
This ruling was just on the stay of the order. Not the order itself.
The stay actually is bogus because it was upheld saying that not allowing people from these 7 countries for 120 days does irreperable harm to the businesses and people of the state of washington.
Next step is actually probably back in the state court of washington brcause the first ruling of the stay there wasnt even a hearing from the adminstrations side. Just an activist judge hearing one side and putting a stay on the order. Also this 9th liberal appeals court in san fran was just 3 judge panel and not even the entire 11 member court.
This EO agree with it or not was entirelly constitutional. A win for justice? So us taking refugees from syria is justice? The rest was temporary.Hearing the questions asked from the 9th appeals court panel of 3 was pretty concerning.
So yet another Bush appointee, this one who used to be the head lawyer of the Republican Party of Hawaii is politically making decisions against Trump? How does that make any sense whatsoever in your brain?
So yet another Bush appointee, this one who used to be the head lawyer of the Republican Party of Hawaii is politically making decisions against Trump? How does that make any sense whatsoever in your brain?
George bush isnt a republican. I fucking hate george bush. Why is this always the attack to anyone who disagrees with a liberal democrat. Its either... Oh its bushs fault....or Oh well George Bush did it so why do you think its a political motive?
There is alot of talk that this was a political favor to murray the senator from washington from bush. The list of choices was a bipartisan list.
This judge was picked specifically because they knew what theyd get. Then the first appeal of the stay would be the 9th circuit. It was planned. Naive to think it wasnt.
"""""District court judicial nominations are often less ideological and partisan than appellate nominations, and in particular, Republican presidents have tended to appoint judges sponsored or favored by home-state Democratic Senators in blue states. Sometimes that’s bipartisan: in New York, when Republican Al D’Amato and Democrat Pat Moynihan served together, it was widely known and accepted that half the district court nominees would be D’Amato nominees and the other half would be Moynihan nominees, and this arrangement persisted under presidents of both parties.
So it is with Judge Robart, as Democratic Senator Patty Murray’s press release made clear when Judge Robart was up for Senate confirmation in 2004:
Murray Works to Confirm Washington Judge James Robart Feb 11 2004 (Washington, D.C.)
""Today U.S. Senator Patty Murray worked to confirm James “Jim” Robart to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington State. Murray worked with Senator Cantwell and White House to nominate Mr. Robart, and today Murray introduced him before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Murray’s remarks follow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I’m honored today to introduce Jim Robart to this committee. For more than 30 years, he has been a respected and important part of the Seattle legal community. Senator Cantwell and I worked with President Bush to select him from a list of very qualified candidates, and today I am proud to offer my full support for his speedy confirmation.
Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell echoed this: “Mr. Robart’s nomination is the result of a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington state. Members of Washington state’s legal community, the White House, and my colleague Sen. Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees, and I believe it is a sound model for other states.”
So there are reasons jobber, not just uhhhh he was appointed by bush
Now George Bush isn't a Republican? That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you think you're proving your point with silly statements like this?
Now George Bush isn't a Republican? That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you think you're proving your point with silly statements like this?
no im proving my point by adding how district judges are typically appointed. Way to strawman
You brought up nothing to rebut what I said. Just george bush republican... Why should I even discuss this with you if you cant even read and present points.
How is something you said, clear as day, a strawman?
Judges are supposed to be appointed impartially. That's the way it has been up until recently. That doesn't make them "activists" or politically motivated.
I always said this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. If they rule the same, will you say the same thing then too?
The court was clear on this. There was no proof presented at all that the country was in imminent danger from people from these countries that are already extremely vetted. They gave the Government an opportunity to present evidence of the danger, and the Government simply said something along the lines of if you knew what we knew, you'd rule for us. Why didn't they share this information with them then? There is longstanding precedence of providing classified data to courts if it is imperative to the case.
How is something you said, clear as day, a strawman?
Judges are supposed to be appointed impartially. That's the way it has been up until recently. That doesn't make them "activists" or politically motivated.
I always said this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. Will you say the same thing then too?
The court was clear on this. There was no proof presented at all that the country was in imminent danger from people from these countries that are already extremely vetted. They gave the Government an opportunity to present evidence of the danger, and the Government simply said something along the lines of if you knew what we knew, you'd rule for us. Why didn't they share this information with them then? There is longstanding precedence of providing classified data to courts if it is imperative to the case.
By picking that one thing which wasnt even the point and not responding to anything else and dodging the topic you were a strawman.
Jobber get real. You are naive as shit if you believe what you just wrote. There is a reason it was presented to this judge. In part because it would go to a certain appeal panel.
You are acting like this is some uber conservative judge hand picked by bush. That is bullshit. It was a bipartison committee list where the democrat senator patty murray from washington championed as the choice. Yeah clear conservative. You are misleading people trying to say DERP BUSH APPOINTED HIM. Its not as easy as that man. There are political favors and reasons for things.
Again you missed the whole point of the ruling and stay on the EO in the first place. The stay was about irreprable harm to the businesses and state of washington. Had nothing to do with the EO being constitutional or not. Had nothing to do with it. It was at a local state district level. And no that part where you said If you knew what we knew youd rule for us. I have been paying attention during this whole ordeal and have never heard that said once as their "argument". Sounds pretty made up.
And what did the Government provide to prove irreparable harm?
The govt had to prove against irreparble harm to public universities, businesses etc(ECONOMIC HARM) The first hearing on it with Ropart was one side presenting it. Their wasnt a court trial. It was an interpretation of basically one side of it. The whole thing was the judge deciding if the state suffers harm by not allowing immigration from those 7 countries
Was the trump administration ready for a court battle ? Probably not. Did a poor job. Just the like the rollout of the EO .. Very poor.
Right, the stay is temporary pending the trial. The stay was granted, and upheld, on the basis of the likelihood of success of the state. There was no reason to keep it in place while planning for trial. The Government couldn't prove the need to keep it in place.
Right, the stay is temporary pending the trial. The stay was granted, and upheld, on the basis of the likelihood of success of the state. There was no reason to keep it in place while planning for trial. The Government couldn't prove the need to keep it in place.
Lawyers on both sides of the argument were freaking morons and not prepared in front of the appeals circuit
Washington state lawyer couldnt even present a numbers argument on muslims affected when asked.
Trump adminstration lawyer. Complete dumbass , couldnt even provide the 60 counts of convicted terrorism charges on US Soil from those 7 countries since 2001. Wasnt prepared at all. The no terrorist acts from those countries since 9/11 is a lie repeated over and over from opponents of the EO. Judge Robart even used the lie in his arguments against the EO when he ruled on the stay of it
Comments
I chose the source deliberately (obviously)
I ask for anyone, right left or middle, to say they're okay with this
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...
I chose the source deliberately (obviously)
I ask for anyone, right left or middle, to say they're okay with this
To think valerie jarret or axelrod wasnt in those meetings with obama is naive.
i think bannon is demonized way too much. The left has tried to make him dick cheney. Like hes some big bad boogey man.
Trump is a protectionist and more of sn isolationist.
He wants to work on infrastructure and try to get a bipartisan bill on that.
Hes on the side of republicans with less govt regulation tax reform.
As far as social issues trump is pretty neutral. Like ive said before hes the firstpresident to take office that was fine with gay marraige. Hes pro life so hes republican on that
But i mean its remarkable democrats despise this guy on every little thing. Hes the most liberal republican ever elected.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-expresses-confidence-travel-ban-restored-082040627--politics.html
Well played leftists. Well played.
This EO is clearly constitutional whether you agree with it or not. The executive branch has broad authority in immigration.
this was pretty amusing. especially the end
this was pretty amusing. especially the end
That was funny, very well done
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/06/report-trump-not-...
I chose the source deliberately (obviously)
I ask for anyone, right left or middle, to say they're okay with this
To think valerie jarret or axelrod wasnt in those meetings with obama is naive.
i think bannon is demonized way too much. The left has tried to make him dick cheney. Like hes some big bad boogey man.
I think he's probably not demonized enough.
i think bannon is demonized way too much. The left has tried to make him dick cheney. Like hes some big bad boogey man.
lol. He literally aspires to be like Dick Cheney. And Darth Vader. Literally. Words from his own mouth.
Great, Betsy Devos is confirmed....
^ Sexist O wait she’s a rep not a dem so that can't apply can it???
Dems changed the rules to benefit them when they had power. Now simply majority is good enough.
Great, Betsy Devos is confirmed....
^ Sexist O wait she’s a rep not a dem so that can't apply can it???
Dems changed the rules to benefit them when they had power. Now simply majority is good enough.
Dude WTF are you even talking about? I could care less if she is a woman or not. And i am not saying anyone cheated to get her in or complaining about the system. It is the simple fact she is a moron that i don't like about this.
Stop making broad assumptions, it makes you look bad. And heads up, i am not even a Democrat lol. I didn't vote for Obama either. Get REKT son.
Great, Betsy Devos is confirmed....
^ Sexist O wait she’s a rep not a dem so that can't apply can it???
Dems changed the rules to benefit them when they had power. Now simply majority is good enough.
Dude WTF are you even talking about? I could care less if she is a woman or not. And i am not saying anyone cheated to get her in or complaining about the system. It is the simple fact she is a moron that i don't like about this.
Stop making broad assumptions, it makes you look bad. And heads up, i am not even a Democrat lol. I didn't vote for Obama either. Get REKT son.
That was way over your head bro lol.
That was way over your head bro lol.
Yeah i realized after you were joking with me lol sorry for jumping the gun on you dude.
I just can't believe she got in. I mean i believe it. I just wish someone who had a little more experience and wasn't an idiot got the job. Regardless of whether you like Trump or not, are a D or R, she is not a good choice IMO.
That was way over your head bro lol.
Yeah i realized after you were joking with me lol sorry for jumping the gun on you dude.
I just can't believe she got in. I mean i believe it. I just wish someone who had a little more experience and wasn't an idiot got the job. Regardless of whether you like Trump or not, are a D or R, she is not a good choice IMO.
No worries bro
^I guess this is what Hillary was referring to as "taking the high road"?
I'm pretty sure even if Trump was the most liberal president ever someone would have made fun of his hair and name like that.
I mean, Obama was painted up to look like The Dark Knight's Joker as a repeated meme.
Temporary stay on Immigration ban until the court votes on it. A 4-4 split would be a blow for democracy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-...
Another victory for the judicial system:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-decision-trump-travel-ban-coming-thursday-221158821.html
Now in the event of a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court (which looks more and more unlikely the longer this drags out) it will fall back on the appeals court decision for a stay on the ban and a win for justice. This sends a clear and concise message that POTUS is not above the law...
This ruling was just on the stay of the order. Not the order itself.
The stay actually is bogus because it was upheld saying that not allowing people from these 7 countries for 120 days does irreperable harm to the businesses and people of the state of washington.
Next step is actually probably back in the state court of washington brcause the first ruling of the stay there wasnt even a hearing from the adminstrations side. Just an activist judge hearing one side and putting a stay on the order. Also this 9th liberal appeals court in san fran was just 3 judge panel and not even the entire 11 member court.
This EO agree with it or not was entirelly constitutional. A win for justice? So us taking refugees from syria is justice? The rest was temporary.Hearing the questions asked from the 9th appeals court panel of 3 was pretty concerning.
So yet another Bush appointee, this one who used to be the head lawyer of the Republican Party of Hawaii is politically making decisions against Trump? How does that make any sense whatsoever in your brain?
George bush isnt a republican. I fucking hate george bush. Why is this always the attack to anyone who disagrees with a liberal democrat. Its either... Oh its bushs fault....or Oh well George Bush did it so why do you think its a political motive?
There is alot of talk that this was a political favor to murray the senator from washington from bush. The list of choices was a bipartisan list.
This judge was picked specifically because they knew what theyd get. Then the first appeal of the stay would be the 9th circuit. It was planned. Naive to think it wasnt.
"""""District court judicial nominations are often less ideological and partisan than appellate nominations, and in particular, Republican presidents have tended to appoint judges sponsored or favored by home-state Democratic Senators in blue states. Sometimes that’s bipartisan: in New York, when Republican Al D’Amato and Democrat Pat Moynihan served together, it was widely known and accepted that half the district court nominees would be D’Amato nominees and the other half would be Moynihan nominees, and this arrangement persisted under presidents of both parties.
So it is with Judge Robart, as Democratic Senator Patty Murray’s press release made clear when Judge Robart was up for Senate confirmation in 2004:
Murray Works to Confirm Washington Judge James Robart Feb 11 2004 (Washington, D.C.)
""Today U.S. Senator Patty Murray worked to confirm James “Jim” Robart to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington State. Murray worked with Senator Cantwell and White House to nominate Mr. Robart, and today Murray introduced him before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Murray’s remarks follow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I’m honored today to introduce Jim Robart to this committee. For more than 30 years, he has been a respected and important part of the Seattle legal community. Senator Cantwell and I worked with President Bush to select him from a list of very qualified candidates, and today I am proud to offer my full support for his speedy confirmation.
Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell echoed this: “Mr. Robart’s nomination is the result of a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington state. Members of Washington state’s legal community, the White House, and my colleague Sen. Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees, and I believe it is a sound model for other states.”
So there are reasons jobber, not just uhhhh he was appointed by bush
Now George Bush isn't a Republican? That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you think you're proving your point with silly statements like this?
no im proving my point by adding how district judges are typically appointed. Way to strawman
You brought up nothing to rebut what I said. Just george bush republican... Why should I even discuss this with you if you cant even read and present points.
Judges are supposed to be appointed impartially. That's the way it has been up until recently. That doesn't make them "activists" or politically motivated.
I always said this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. If they rule the same, will you say the same thing then too?
The court was clear on this. There was no proof presented at all that the country was in imminent danger from people from these countries that are already extremely vetted. They gave the Government an opportunity to present evidence of the danger, and the Government simply said something along the lines of if you knew what we knew, you'd rule for us. Why didn't they share this information with them then? There is longstanding precedence of providing classified data to courts if it is imperative to the case.
How is something you said, clear as day, a strawman?
Judges are supposed to be appointed impartially. That's the way it has been up until recently. That doesn't make them "activists" or politically motivated.
I always said this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. Will you say the same thing then too?
The court was clear on this. There was no proof presented at all that the country was in imminent danger from people from these countries that are already extremely vetted. They gave the Government an opportunity to present evidence of the danger, and the Government simply said something along the lines of if you knew what we knew, you'd rule for us. Why didn't they share this information with them then? There is longstanding precedence of providing classified data to courts if it is imperative to the case.
By picking that one thing which wasnt even the point and not responding to anything else and dodging the topic you were a strawman.
Jobber get real. You are naive as shit if you believe what you just wrote. There is a reason it was presented to this judge. In part because it would go to a certain appeal panel.
You are acting like this is some uber conservative judge hand picked by bush. That is bullshit. It was a bipartison committee list where the democrat senator patty murray from washington championed as the choice. Yeah clear conservative. You are misleading people trying to say DERP BUSH APPOINTED HIM. Its not as easy as that man. There are political favors and reasons for things.
Again you missed the whole point of the ruling and stay on the EO in the first place. The stay was about irreprable harm to the businesses and state of washington. Had nothing to do with the EO being constitutional or not. Had nothing to do with it. It was at a local state district level. And no that part where you said If you knew what we knew youd rule for us. I have been paying attention during this whole ordeal and have never heard that said once as their "argument". Sounds pretty made up.
And what did the Government provide to prove irreparable harm?
The govt had to prove against irreparble harm to public universities, businesses etc(ECONOMIC HARM) The first hearing on it with Ropart was one side presenting it. Their wasnt a court trial. It was an interpretation of basically one side of it. The whole thing was the judge deciding if the state suffers harm by not allowing immigration from those 7 countries
Was the trump administration ready for a court battle ? Probably not. Did a poor job. Just the like the rollout of the EO .. Very poor.
Doesnt make them wrong. Just not politically savy
Right, the stay is temporary pending the trial. The stay was granted, and upheld, on the basis of the likelihood of success of the state. There was no reason to keep it in place while planning for trial. The Government couldn't prove the need to keep it in place.
Lawyers on both sides of the argument were freaking morons and not prepared in front of the appeals circuit
Washington state lawyer couldnt even present a numbers argument on muslims affected when asked.
Trump adminstration lawyer. Complete dumbass , couldnt even provide the 60 counts of convicted terrorism charges on US Soil from those 7 countries since 2001. Wasnt prepared at all. The no terrorist acts from those countries since 9/11 is a lie repeated over and over from opponents of the EO. Judge Robart even used the lie in his arguments against the EO when he ruled on the stay of it