Judge Considers Ordering President Donald Trump to Double 50,000 Refugee Inflow

[Mac1958]

Remember the "oppressed/oppressor" template the "progressives" apply to virtually every situation. In this situation, America is the oppressor, the refugees are the oppressed, and therefore we must capitulate regardless of any consequences.

"capitulate"? The metric is complicated, and too much so as to reduce it to a single word as you have done.

The point remains.

Remains to what avail?

Just pointing something out. It's a message board. We can do that.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

Given the fact we've caused most of the misery over there, taking in 100K of them is the least we can do.

Have em move in with Obama then. He's the asshole that did it.

 

[mudwhistle]

The judge would not be "legislating" from the bench, as the OP avers. It would be reaffirming the previous administration's goal of 100 thousand.

Obama declared that without congressional approval......so the judge has no legal standing on the matter......consequently it is a judicial overreach.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judge would not be "legislating" from the bench, as the OP avers. It would be reaffirming the previous administration's goal of 100 thousand.

Obama declared that without congressional approval......so the judge has no legal standing on the matter......consequently it is a judicial overreach.

So you keep thinking your a legal scholar? OK. Yes, he does, and, no, you don't.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That would be highly unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the separation of powers. The judiciary has no real power to order something like this.

 

[mudwhistle]

The judge would not be "legislating" from the bench, as the OP avers. It would be reaffirming the previous administration's goal of 100 thousand.

Obama declared that without congressional approval......so the judge has no legal standing on the matter......consequently it is a judicial overreach.

So you keep thinking your a legal scholar? OK. Yes, he does, and, no, you don't.

Doesn’t take a mother fucking legal scholar to read and understand the US CONSTITUTION, Jake Snarkey.
But I do have a Paralegal education from college. And anyone trying to support this is a liar. Back when Obama was president you fuckers felt he could get away with murder, but Trump supposedly is powerless. A simple application of the rule of law says this judge is out of line.

"Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall’s crystal-clear wording is below.

This definitive legal ruling empowers Americans acting upon or enforcing such non-laws to reject them in full confidence of their Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Given the fact we've caused most of the misery over there, taking in 100K of them is the least we can do.

Can we move them all to your neighborhood?

Texas seems to be better suited for the refugees in question, especially Western Texas. An arid & usually hot desert with oil below.

not a good idea. it would become an OIL EMIRATE----and
secede from the USA (by the will of allah)

But it would raise the level of the mean IQ in Texas, while lowering it in the effected countries. Maybe then they would not outsmart us, as they did by attacking the WTC and creating a nation with paranoid leaders and fear mongers.

Think about how 911 changed our nation from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

So you're saying they're smarter than the beaners who reside along the border in those desert regions?

 

[mudwhistle]

The judicial branch of the government is clearly limited by the first section of the constitution: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Those legislative powers are limited by the Bill of Rights, as well as by section 9 and other portions of the constitution.

When any judge or judicial group essentially makes law, modifies a law, assigns rights that did not previously exist, or strikes down a law which does not clearly violate the constitution, it is guilty of judicial overreach. In fact, given what the courts have done over the years as compared to their assigned duties by the constitution, it does not appear that our founding fathers even anticipated that the court would seize the power that they have seized.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/08/10/judicial-overreach-reader-post/​

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

SOURCE: Breibart

max fail, thread should be deleted for lack of a valid link

too common

 

[mudwhistle]

SOURCE: Breibart

max fail, thread should be deleted for lack of a valid link

too common

As we should with anything from NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, ESPN, The View, The Daily Show, SNL, The Democratic Underground, The AP, Mother Jones, The NYTimes, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, USAToday, ThinkProgress, Newsweek, Politico, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and every other piece of shit news source that George Soros operates.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Remains to what avail?

Just pointing something out. It's a message board. We can do that.
.

Yeah, MAC, but pointing things out to libtards is like watering a rock.

Even though you do have a point, your use of it seems rather pointless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The judicial branch of the government is clearly limited by the first section of the constitution: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Those legislative powers are limited by the Bill of Rights, as well as by section 9 and other portions of the constitution.

When any judge or judicial group essentially makes law, modifies a law, assigns rights that did not previously exist, or strikes down a law which does not clearly violate the constitution, it is guilty of judicial overreach. In fact, given what the courts have done over the years as compared to their assigned duties by the constitution, it does not appear that our founding fathers even anticipated that the court would seize the power that they have seized.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/08/10/judicial-overreach-reader-post/​

True, but if everyone in our government fails in their Constitutional duty to reign these idiots in and make them obey the limits that they do have, they can continue to make the perpetual growth of judicial over-reach a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Divine Wind]

True, but so what? Responding to a not in my neighborhood doesn't require much of a response - I was simply playing with a stereotype of the ME in general.

Because racists and people who stereotype others for political goals should always be pointed out. You acting innocent and blaming others for your racism just makes you look silly at best and a liar at worst.

But it would raise the level of the mean IQ in Texas, while lowering it in the effected countries. Maybe then they would not outsmart us, as they did by attacking the WTC and creating a nation with paranoid leaders and fear mongers.

Think about how 911 changed our nation from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Your hatred of Texas is interesting. Given your previous racist statements, I'm guessing you hate Texas because it has 3 times the national average of Hispanics and that population is growing.

 

[JoeB131]

Can we move them all to your neighborhood?

If you promise to move all the inbred white trash out and send them somewhere else, I'm good with that.

 

[JoeB131]

How many will you be taking in and supporting, us Americans don't want them, let all the problems stay over there .

I'd rather pay money to help these people than paying Haliburton to kill them.

 

[Divine Wind]

If you promise to move all the inbred white trash out and send them somewhere else, I'm good with that.

Awesome; more overt racism from the LW. One of the many reasons why many Americans don't trust Democrats to be honest and fair.