Travel Ban 2.0 DejaVu?

[OldLady]

Correct, that's why they are the most overturned court in our country. Having judges that only have their rulings overturned all the time is a waste of taxpayer time and money. I would predict they will once again rule against Trump this time as well.

They consistently rule in spite of, not according to the Constitution.

That is the leftist agenda, destroy the fabric of the country.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Justices are "consistently ruling" the way they do because the Right keeps trying to bring un-Constitutional laws?

I say its good these leftist activist judges Obama entrenched everywhere are exposing themselves.

It will make it easier to pluck them out by the roots.

You are trying to turn this country into a Banana Republic with all this talk of reprisal and removing opponents.
You will be resisted.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Correct, that's why they are the most overturned court in our country. Having judges that only have their rulings overturned all the time is a waste of taxpayer time and money. I would predict they will once again rule against Trump this time as well.

They consistently rule in spite of, not according to the Constitution.

That is the leftist agenda, destroy the fabric of the country.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Justices are "consistently ruling" the way they do because the Right keeps trying to bring un-Constitutional laws?

I say its good these leftist activist judges Obama entrenched everywhere are exposing themselves.

It will make it easier to pluck them out by the roots.

You are trying to turn this country into a Banana Republic with all this talk of reprisal and removing opponents.
You will be resisted.

Judges should be impartial, not leftist activists.

Obama is who appointed all these land mines.

Here comes Trump!

 

[Claudette]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

Kinda funny no one said a word when Obama did the same thing in 2011. Not. One. Word.

Seems you'd rather let these people in and HOPE none of them are terrorists.

Trumps EO is constitutional just like it was for Obama.

I've responded to this claim earlier in this thread, and Kosh supplied a NYT article explaining what Obama actually did. It was nothing like this travel ban. Read it.

It was the same seven countries and I for one agree with the ban.

If it were up to me I'd ban immigration into this country for the next five years and when it resumed I'd let people in who actually have something to contribute to our country.

I'd also kick every damned Muslim out of America.

 

[OldLady]

Correct, that's why they are the most overturned court in our country. Having judges that only have their rulings overturned all the time is a waste of taxpayer time and money. I would predict they will once again rule against Trump this time as well.

They consistently rule in spite of, not according to the Constitution.

That is the leftist agenda, destroy the fabric of the country.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Justices are "consistently ruling" the way they do because the Right keeps trying to bring un-Constitutional laws?

I say its good these leftist activist judges Obama entrenched everywhere are exposing themselves.

It will make it easier to pluck them out by the roots.

You are trying to turn this country into a Banana Republic with all this talk of reprisal and removing opponents.
You will be resisted.

Judges should be impartial, not leftist activists.

Obama is who appointed all these land mines.

Here comes Trump!

So they're only "impartial" if you agree with their decisions?

 

[basquebromance]

this Hawaii judge probably did weed and blow with Obama...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, that's why they are the most overturned court in our country. Having judges that only have their rulings overturned all the time is a waste of taxpayer time and money. I would predict they will once again rule against Trump this time as well.

They consistently rule in spite of, not according to the Constitution.

That is the leftist agenda, destroy the fabric of the country.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Justices are "consistently ruling" the way they do because the Right keeps trying to bring un-Constitutional laws?

There is nothing unconstitutional about this law. It's been there for quite a while now. The only problem the left has with it is we have a Republican President using it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

They want Gorsuch in because leftists judges are activists. This is a perfect example of that. It's also my hope that the country sees what could happen if we made the mistake of electing Hillary to the presidency. She would be appointing clowns just like this guy to the Supreme Court.

I read in the paper this morning that Gorsich's role model is a Justice from the past named White who was so stubbornly a-political that no one could ever predict what his decisions would be. He had to be persuaded with factual arguments. So if that's the case, how Gorsich feels about abortion or guns or anything else may be moot.

Well then......... I guess the Democrats will have no problem with conformation.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[
If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

The decision was not based on law, it was based on politics. This piece of shit Watson ruled in accordance to party goals. No thought was given to precedent or constitutional basis.

He should be impeached and disbarred.

Maybe you should hang him while you're at it.
Even if I disagree with a SC or a Federal Court decision, I don't call them incompetent or politically motivated. Just stupid, mainly. I don't call for their heads, either. The Right is becoming seriously fascist. Live with the fact that some of these justices see an issue here. Intent has been considered in some cases before, and in this case, apparently a number of judges agree that it is a factor.

You can't deny that Trump made it clear he wanted a ban on all Muslims and learned during the campaign that he couldn't do that. So he's coming as close as he can. I fear he is just getting his foot in the door with this action, and that he will soon come back to us and say their review has shown that additional countries are unsafe and there is no safe way to let these people in, etc. and etc.

Yep, and terrorists killed even less Americans before 2001.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[OldLady]

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

They want Gorsuch in because leftists judges are activists. This is a perfect example of that. It's also my hope that the country sees what could happen if we made the mistake of electing Hillary to the presidency. She would be appointing clowns just like this guy to the Supreme Court.

I read in the paper this morning that Gorsich's role model is a Justice from the past named White who was so stubbornly a-political that no one could ever predict what his decisions would be. He had to be persuaded with factual arguments. So if that's the case, how Gorsich feels about abortion or guns or anything else may be moot.

Well then......... I guess the Democrats will have no problem with conformation.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I can't speak for them, but he seems fine to me. What hasn't been fine with me is the Republicans refusing to replace Scalia until now. There was nothing wrong with Garland either. If the Dems do the same thing, a Pox on both their houses.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

So you are happy to see judges ignore the law and issued purely political decisions.

I'm happy to see them standing up for what I believe this country is about. Not fear. Not stinginess. Not hatred.

What they are not standing up for is the rule of law and you are happy about that.

I think I'll let these Federal Judges determine what the rule of law is, rather than you. Seems to be their job.
But YES I already said if it slows down this E.O. from being implemented, I'm glad their opinions got in the way. What is so awful about that, anyway?

The judge doesn't have the legal right to decide what the law is but simply to apply the law as it is. The court has no legal jurisdiction in this matter, so the judge created the fiction that temporarily banning travel from six of the fifty Muslim majority nations in the world is evidence that the ban was based on religious discrimination against Muslims. Using this judge's reasoning that because nearly all the people effected by the ban are Muslims, they are being banned because they are Muslims, one could argue that since nearly all the people Obama has killed in airstrikes are Muslims, he killed them because they are Muslims.

The law is clear and simple regarding the travel ban: the law gives the President complete discretion to prevent anyone from entering the country if he decides they pose a security risk and the courts have no jurisdiction to question his judgement on this matter. Hence this judge's bizarre lie that a ban that does not effect 88% of the world's Muslim majority countries had no other purpose than to discriminate against Muslims.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you are happy to see judges ignore the law and issued purely political decisions.

I'm happy to see them standing up for what I believe this country is about. Not fear. Not stinginess. Not hatred.

What they are not standing up for is the rule of law and you are happy about that.

I think I'll let these Federal Judges determine what the rule of law is, rather than you. Seems to be their job.
But YES I already said if it slows down this E.O. from being implemented, I'm glad their opinions got in the way. What is so awful about that, anyway?

Actually their job is to obey the constitution and statutes of the united states. Not decide what they like and don't like based off politics

I don't know that they did that. Some are speculating that is the case because they don't like what the Justice decided. Their job is to analyze the laws to see if they are constitutional. There will always be some disagreement about that, based on how a justice interprets the constitution. Disagreement does not mean activism, necessarily. No one here is a Justice, and no one here is qualified to say the Justice's decision is unsound. That is up to the SC to decide.

Bullshit. There is no basis in law or logic for this judge's decision. This is a clear case of a federal judge abandoning his legal duties to promote his own political biases.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

They want Gorsuch in because leftists judges are activists. This is a perfect example of that. It's also my hope that the country sees what could happen if we made the mistake of electing Hillary to the presidency. She would be appointing clowns just like this guy to the Supreme Court.

I read in the paper this morning that Gorsich's role model is a Justice from the past named White who was so stubbornly a-political that no one could ever predict what his decisions would be. He had to be persuaded with factual arguments. So if that's the case, how Gorsich feels about abortion or guns or anything else may be moot.

Well then......... I guess the Democrats will have no problem with conformation.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I can't speak for them, but he seems fine to me. What hasn't been fine with me is the Republicans refusing to replace Scalia until now. There was nothing wrong with Garland either. If the Dems do the same thing, a Pox on both their houses.

I guess that's debatable, but on the other hand, look what this lib judge just did. He totally disregarded our immigration law to usurp our legislative branch. He decided that he will halt any law that he disagrees with. I don't think I want any judge (left or right) abusing their power like that on the Supreme Court.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[basquebromance]

Hawai'ians think a Muslim ban will hurt tourism.

...as opposed to rapes & beheadings?

 

[basquebromance]

In Bragging About Their Muslim Ban, Trump and His Cronies Sound Like Dumb Movie Villains

 

[Pete7469]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Justices are "consistently ruling" the way they do because the Right keeps trying to bring un-Constitutional laws?

My good Lady....

I make an effort to respond to you kindly, because you are one of the few libturds that is worth engaging.

Please inform me which law "the right" keeps trying to pass that is un-Constitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doesn't matter . It's not about them. The con doesn't allow the targeting of religion .

You are woefully ignorant, which is why you are a Communist.

Please demonstrate where the Constitution dictates that we may not restrict entry of people from enemy nations who are engaged in hostilities against us?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah . Cause highly educated and experienced judges at the top of their field don't know the constitution.

You, a stupid rube, you know the constitution!!!!

They may know it, but they don't give a flying fuck about it. Party is all to them, just as it is with you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Maybe you should hang him while you're at it.

Watson violated the United States Constitution and his oath of office to further the agenda of George Soros's democratic party. The Constitutional remedy for such an act is impeachment. I realize that you of the left are openly hostile to the Constitution, still...

Even if I disagree with a SC or a Federal Court decision, I don't call them incompetent or politically motivated. Just stupid, mainly. I don't call for their heads, either. The Right is becoming seriously fascist. Live with the fact that some of these justices see an issue here. Intent has been considered in some cases before, and in this case, apparently a number of judges agree that it is a factor.

Irrelevant.

Watson is a hack who openly and blatantly defied the Constitution to pursue the goals of the party. He has no business being a federal judge or even practicing law. "Legal Ethics" may well be an oxymoron, still the pretense is best kept. Watson violated every precept of judicial integrity in his decision to put party ahead of the law.

You can't deny that Trump made it clear he wanted a ban on all Muslims and learned during the campaign that he couldn't do that. So he's coming as close as he can. I fear he is just getting his foot in the door with this action, and that he will soon come back to us and say their review has shown that additional countries are unsafe and there is no safe way to let these people in, etc. and etc.

Irrelevant. Watson, like you promoted his hatred of the enemy of you party, rather than applying the EO as written. What Trump did or did not say on the campaign trail is not germane to the constitutionality of orders given to the executive branch by the president. That Watson is a butthurt snowflake is not a legal foundation for a ruling.

He should be impeached and disbarred.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

So they're only "impartial" if you agree with their decisions?

They are impartial if they follow the fucking law; Watson did not. He put party first. He should be impeached and disbarred.

 

[pwjohn]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

Excellent news. Much thanks to the courts for reining in our maniac in chief.