We are a nation of laws......

[Sun Devil 92]

Sun, I do believe that you take yourself WAY too seriously....

So your comment was just in jest...got it.

 

[Claudette]

It was purely political, they based their ruling off of his campaign rhetoric and not national security




.

Yup and they didn't bother to research those seven countries. One of those loonies said no one from any of those countries had ever hurt America. Wrong.

This was all political and the 9th couldn't care less about the safety of Americans.

I hope Trump kicks this back to the district court that filed it and beefs up the vetting process big time.

Those loony left judges on the 9th better hope no one from those seven countries gets in to America and Americans are killed because Trump can point the finger right at their looney asses.

 

[nat4900]

You're making assumptions, feel free to enlighten me on what you think I'm missing.

 

[nat4900]

feel free to enlighten me

Do you have a sturdy 2 x 4 handy to "enlighten" you?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Mexico and the 7 countries per Trump's temporary ban; they each enforce Immigration. Why don't you people get that US is trying to do that same?

Because most of us do NOT want our country to be "just like " Yemen, Libya or even Mexico........

Yep. You people have issue with enforcing immigration laws yet most of you don't have the gumption to call for open borders for US.

 

[LeftofLeft]

He roams the halls of the WH ?

Oooops...he's the president....I guess he gets to do that.

Suck on it.

Nitwit, Trump's sleeps a mere 4 hours each night spending the rest of the night tweeting, eating Twinkies and conjuring up revenge on anyone who doesn't like his orange hair.

Mexico and the 7 countries per Trump's temporary ban; they each enforce Immigration. Why don't you people get that US is trying to do that same?

Banning groups of people based on religion violates our Constitution. On average, immigrants undergo TWO years of rigorous vetting - sometimes more.

Where and how is the temporary ban based on Religion? I don't see Syrian Christians getting in right now and they are the ones being oppressed and persecuted by the majority. Further, you sight a two year vetting process, Trump has proposed a months long temporary ban to stem the influx.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think the administration should rewrite the order, addressing the courts concerns and try it again.

I don't think the battle should be taking place here.

Everything I hear says the government did a lousy job of arguing the case.

If they lose again, they can try it again.

Pushing it up the chain, having not provide the court with a good argument, seems stupid.

They could let it go too.

If anyone dies....it's on the left (at the same time it is also on those who did a poor job of arguing it).

Wait and try it again.

Trump is certainly placating his base in this regard.

All the talk of insanity....is just that...insanity.

This is very shrewd in many ways.

 

[OKTexas]

feel free to enlighten me

Do you have a sturdy 2 x 4 handy to "enlighten" you?

Why do regressives always revert to violence when you get stumped?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They will be overturned, they most all t he time are.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All kidding and bantering aside, the real IMPORTANCE of this 'smack down" to Trump's erratic and ill-advised policies is that he may (or not) begin to realize that running a country of laws like ours is NOT the same as running a real estate business where people who tell him he may be wrong get fired or don't get paid.

So, again, for possible penetration of your liberal cranium, what law did Trump not follow?

The courts did not say. How about your input?

Did you read the opinion? It's laid out very clearly - they did a very good job, likely understanding how many lay people would likely be reading it.

Seriously, read it. It's 29 pages so you might need to skip some of your usual time here - but when you get back, I'll happily explain any legal concepts you find confusing. And I mean this will all graciousness and a real desire to engage with a fellow citizen.

The opinion never even referenced the law that authorizes the President to do what he did!

That is like giving you a traffic ticket for driving a lawnmower in your yard!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

Why is unconstitutional? It is because the courts seem to think that people who are not US citizens coming from other countries are entitled to our Constitutional rights, which they are not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I will add that lawyers are already talking about this decision and more than not believe that it will be upheld at SCOTUS, if it ever gets there. Republican lawyers as well as Democrat and Libertarian and Independent. It's about the law, not politics. Truly.

So why can't you tell us why it is unconstitutional since the court failed to even reference the law?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually the only thing the 9th circus proved is activist regressive judges don't give a flying fuck about the law. The law grants the president sole discretion on this. Now it's time to lobby congress to halt all immigration, refugees and student visas for at least 5 years.

I realize that you're royally pissed (dare i say "butt-hurt" as you morons like to say?)

BUT, what these courts have found is that what Trump tried to pull off is something that is UN-constitutional...period.

When the judges are determined to be wrong they should be impeached, they didn't reach their conclusion based on the law or the Constitution, it was pure politics.

Dear Lord, you are clueless about how judicial review works in this country, aren't you?

Is this the state of civics education in this country? No wonder so many people fell for Trump.

You might want to look up the meaning of Sole Discretion.

View attachment 111640

Show me in the law where the president has to justify his decision to ANYONE, no hurry I'll wait.

Try using the OTHER half of your brains....

The Trump DOJ offered NO proof to the court that these banned immigrants posed any "detriment to the interests of the United States."

Not required. Next stupid liberal argument!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,

Again, yet another right wing moron chimes in with the same half-assed "argument (as FOX is telling them to spew)......THE DOJ SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF THESE IMMIGRANTS POSING A "DETRIMENT" TO THIS COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.....

Surely there;s got to be a grown up around to explain it to you.

Where is that required under the law?

Hint: Nowhere.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ok, if that's too hard for you, try this:

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

Obama had EOs overturned too, you know. Were you bawling about judicial activism then? If not, you are being entirely disingenuous.

And Marbury v. Madison wasn't a 'power grab' in the way you mean it - it was the SCOTUS asserting the power granted to it by the Constitution.

Please read more and watch FOX news less. I think you'd find the history of your own country to be pretty fascinating stuff.

You claim to be a lawyer? Anyone making the stupid assertion that judicial review is somehow contained in the Constitution as written is mentally deficient. That has been documented for over 200 years!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Ok, if that's too hard for you, try this:

There's no such thing as sole discretion; you still have to follow the Constitution.

Obama had EOs overturned too, you know. Were you bawling about judicial activism then? If not, you are being entirely disingenuous.

And Marbury v. Madison wasn't a 'power grab' in the way you mean it - it was the SCOTUS asserting the power granted to it by the Constitution.

Please read more and watch FOX news less. I think you'd find the history of your own country to be pretty fascinating stuff.

You claim to be a lawyer? Anyone making the stupid assertion that judicial review is somehow contained in the Constitution as written is mentally deficient. That has been documented for over 200 years!

It's so funny that a (supposedly) Georgetown educated lawyer could be so ignorant.

 

[FA_Q2]

The 9th has 86 of every 100 cases overturned by the Supreme court, that tells you all you need to know about this ruling. Its like asking Bernie Sanders to make a ruling on welfare.

Link?

That is an impressive failure rate. That should tell you something.

 

[Wyatt earp]

He roams the halls of the WH ?

Oooops...he's the president....I guess he gets to do that.

Suck on it.

Nitwit, Trump's sleeps a mere 4 hours each night spending the rest of the night tweeting, eating Twinkies and conjuring up revenge on anyone who doesn't like his orange hair.

Mexico and the 7 countries per Trump's temporary ban; they each enforce Immigration. Why don't you people get that US is trying to do that same?

Banning groups of people based on religion violates our Constitution. On average, immigrants undergo TWO years of rigorous vetting - sometimes more.

As you were saying?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The recent 9th circuit appellate decision confirms that tenet.....Mindful that the district court decision was by a judge appointed by a republican....and the appellate decision ALSO had a judge appointed by a republican.......Ergo, Trump's inane comment that the decisions are "all political" is as stupid as most of the comments he tweets.

We are NOT a nation of right wingers interpreting the Constitution as they want it to mean.

We are NOT a nation of ignorant presidents who learn their legal precepts from watching episodes of Law & Order ....

We are NOT a nation that supports xenophobia, torturing and misogynistic policies because some clowns tell us that otherwise we should live in fear.

The "emperor's new clothes" are being exposed.

So you going to admit nat that you and the 9th was wrong? Once again...


.

 

[Dale Smith]

Actually, we are a corporate entity that is under acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" because "da gubermint" is a corporation contracted to provide the 19 enumerated services per their corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 in a "for profit venture" while they give us their credit card bill to pay off.