Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,701
- 1,400
Coming next week. Will be yet another Trump win.
Supreme Court could reveal action on travel ban at any time
Supreme Court could reveal action on travel ban at any time
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
Also, if the "extreme vetting" we're to disproportionally affect Muslims, the left would judge shop to find a judge to block it just as the temporary ban was blocked.I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
Was the entire "extreme vetting" campaign put on hold due to not getting the temporary ban?Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.
Got to have a budget first. How can you provide $$$$ to do it if you don't have the cash because Democrats are being obstructionist.Was the entire "extreme vetting" campaign put on hold due to not getting the temporary ban?Court could say that now it is moot because of time constraints. But this ban was part of "extreme vetting " campaign.I agree, but that does not answer the questions I posed?It must be ruled on so in case the President needs to reinstate it later on.I agree; however, the ban was supose to be temporary......90 days so that there would be time to know "what the hell we are doing", and to implement extreme vetting. It's already been more than 90 days. Do we need the temporary ban now? Where is the extreme vetting?The Federal District and Circuit courts blew this one big time. They had NO BUSINESS second-guessing the President's assessment of the threat, or including his ambiguous campaign rhetoric in their deliberations. They will be smacked down harshly - with four dissenting votes, of course.