Yep, another judge stops Trump from MAGA

[OKTexas]

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the rule from going into effect Sunday. It’s not clear when he will rule on the merits of the case.

Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday contending the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants.

The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the United States with family sponsored visas.

“We’re very grateful that the court recognized the need to block the health care ban immediately,” says Justice Action Center senior litigator Esther Sung, who argued at Saturday’s hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. “The ban would separate families and cut two-thirds of green-card-based immigration starting tonight, were the ban not stopped.”

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

So what are we up to now, about 30 times a judge has stopped Trump from doing his job in three years? Then the Democrats keep asking why Trump isn't accomplishing more, in spite of all he has accomplished. Look you people, if your leftist organizations would stay out of his way, Trump could be accomplishing much more.

perhaps if Trump did things legally he wouldn’t be blocked by the courts so much... novel idea huh?!

How about you demonstrate he's not following the law.

.

 

[OKTexas]

That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves, and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power, to maintain, defend, and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled, and died, and to hand them

nice quote

Thank you , just popped in my head

Yeah right... don’t take credit for other people’s work. That’s not respectable. I know that passage

Well hi nice to meet cha. Glad you like my work

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

 

[Slade3200]

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the rule from going into effect Sunday. It’s not clear when he will rule on the merits of the case.

Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday contending the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants.

The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the United States with family sponsored visas.

“We’re very grateful that the court recognized the need to block the health care ban immediately,” says Justice Action Center senior litigator Esther Sung, who argued at Saturday’s hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. “The ban would separate families and cut two-thirds of green-card-based immigration starting tonight, were the ban not stopped.”

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

So what are we up to now, about 30 times a judge has stopped Trump from doing his job in three years? Then the Democrats keep asking why Trump isn't accomplishing more, in spite of all he has accomplished. Look you people, if your leftist organizations would stay out of his way, Trump could be accomplishing much more.

perhaps if Trump did things legally he wouldn’t be blocked by the courts so much... novel idea huh?!

How about you demonstrate he's not following the law.

.

I'm not claiming he is breaking the law with this case, I don’t know the details to make that claim. he has in the past which is part of the reason why he’s been in court so much.

 

[Slade3200]

nice quote

Thank you , just popped in my head

Yeah right... don’t take credit for other people’s work. That’s not respectable. I know that passage

Well hi nice to meet cha. Glad you like my work

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals always do this. If they lose at the ballot box they run to liberal judges.

 

[OKTexas]

Thank you , just popped in my head

Yeah right... don’t take credit for other people’s work. That’s not respectable. I know that passage

Well hi nice to meet cha. Glad you like my work

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

 

[jc456]

Liberal activist Judges firmly believe that the American taxpayer pockets are infinitely deep!

Think of it: these are the same people that supported a clown who wrote a law that all Americans must have health insurance, and if you don't, you will be penalized. Now they are fighting to stop Trump from refusing to let people with no insurance into the country.

But they tell us Democrats are not hypocrites.

and the supreme court said it was allowed! can't make this shit up.

One can mandate a citizen, but not an illegal. go fking figure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberal activist Judges firmly believe that the American taxpayer pockets are infinitely deep!

Think of it: these are the same people that supported a clown who wrote a law that all Americans must have health insurance, and if you don't, you will be penalized. Now they are fighting to stop Trump from refusing to let people with no insurance into the country.

But they tell us Democrats are not hypocrites.

and the supreme court said it was allowed! can't make this shit up.

One can mandate a citizen, but not an illegal. go fking figure.

Oh......they can, but when you are an Obama flunkey, that's out of the question.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah right... don’t take credit for other people’s work. That’s not respectable. I know that passage

Well hi nice to meet cha. Glad you like my work

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals always do this. If they lose at the ballot box they run to liberal judges.

Correct. How many times has this been already? I have several links in my Trump folder of judges stopping Trump's immigration measures. Yes, most of them overturned, but they are only doing it to slow things down. Commie judges like this know they're wrong, and what they are doing is as un-American as it can get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What we are really talking about here is the violation of the separation of powers. Because of these Democrat appointed judges, we now have a judicial system that overrides and even attempts to control the executive branch unjustly.

This is not an isolated case. It's been done repeatedly on the immigration issue. Trump creates a constructive plan to retard or stop immigration problems, and the commie judges simply stop him in his tracks.

Since Trump entered the White House, all we heard from the left is about his abuse of executive power. But for whatever reason, they have no problem with judiciary abuse of power, as long as it benefits them.

it kind of sounds like you are saying anything the president does is by definition Constitutional and the courts have right to interfere

If there is something unconstitutional about it, let him spit it out. If he does, it's likely a stretch so far nobody could even relate to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's perfectly legal. What these commie judges do is ignore our laws, and create their own on the bench. As you see with my post above, this power has resided with the President since the 60's.

Now, the job of a judge is to determine if something is lawful or not. Clearly, it is, but these clowns don't rule on law, they rule on what's good on behalf of the Democrat party. And this is why they should never be in a position to nominate judges to the court system. They don't obey the law.

Rulings are made on arguments based on written law. Read a ruling and it will be explained. You are only looking at one side of the equation and presenting it as fact, but that’s not honest or real

It's very honest and real.

What is the job of a judge? A judge is used to determine if laws were followed or not. It's that simple. You can argue the law all you like, but it's the judges job to rule if laws were followed properly.

Now if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judge to change or ignore it. That's up to your representatives. Judges don't (or are not supposed to) write laws on the bench.

So it's like this: Trump made a ruling following written laws that were passed by Congress. This judge (like most of the leftist judges) said I don't care about the law. You're in my town breathing my air. What do you think this is, the United States of America where the country is ruled by silly laws? I make the laws here, not Congress.

i agree with your description of a judges role. But you claim to be honest and then make false claims like...

“This judge (like most of the leftist judges) said I don't care about the law. You're in my town breathing my air. What do you think this is, the United States of America where the country is ruled by silly laws? I make the laws here, not Congress”

We both know that’s not true, so why don’t you just be honest and post the judges real reason for the ruling and then you can state what you disagree with.

What other reason can a judge have for ignoring the law given the fact he was an Obama appointee, who is all behind immigration like the rest of the party?

Let me put it another way:

Let's say after work tomorrow, you and a couple of coworkers decide to stop at Applebee's for some dinner and drinks. On the way home, you get into an accident. The police come out, smell alcohol on your breath, and request you take some tests. You pass the tests, and your BAC was .06.

When you go to court, the judge sites you for being under the influence and getting into an accident. You argue the point that being under the influence in your state is .08. You blew .02 under that limit.

The judge says he doesn't care. You shouldn't have been drinking in the first place. Furthermore, as far as he's concerned, you were drunk enough at .06. First offense for DUI in your state is a suspended license for 30 days, and up to three days in jail. But the judge suspends your license for year, and sentences you to 30 days in jail. Would you find this acceptable, or would you call that a rogue court?

Sure, you will win in appeals, but that takes a lot of time and more money. The question is, should that judge be a judge in the first place given his ruling?

your article nor you have tried to explain the reason the judge ordered the restraining order. You are painting it as a jidge making law and not enforcing the law which isn’t true. Here is a better article that actually explains what the judge did and why...

You gotta present both sides of the argument if you want to be respected Ray... otherwise you come off as a partisan hack

Federal judge in Oregon temporarily bars President Trump from restricting visas for immigrants without health insurance

Thanks for wasting my time. It told me nothing more than I already knew. He's making up some BS to support his commie ruling.

Simon granted temporary relief in the public’s interest, saying it appeared the new mandate conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act and related federal health care law, and is “arbitrary and capricious.’’ He scheduled a hearing for Nov. 22 to consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the case.

Well if it conflicts with anything, then it's been conflicting since the 1960's when Code 1182 was passed. What Fn federal healthcare law is this commie referring to? And what's arbitrary about it? ALL people with Visa's must meet that requirement. It's not "some" green card applicants, applicants from certain places, it applies to all.

So what is the real reason?

The judge was swayed by plaintiffs’ arguments that the new practice, if permitted to start Sunday, “would essentially shut down all or most of the country’s immigration system right now,’’''

BINGO! We have a winner here. Given the fact that the Democrat party evolved (I know how you leftists love that word) into the anti-white party, stopping people of color would ruin their plans on making whites a minority ASAP. After all, let's face it, that's what they are really trying to do.

You see, once whites are wiped out as the majority, that gives the commies an opportunity to turn us into a single-party government forever, and they are becoming impatient about getting that power.

So the bottom line here is he's not ruling based on any stupid laws he cited, he's ruling on the goal of the real Communists, the Democrat party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the rule from going into effect Sunday. It’s not clear when he will rule on the merits of the case.

Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday contending the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants.

The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the United States with family sponsored visas.

“We’re very grateful that the court recognized the need to block the health care ban immediately,” says Justice Action Center senior litigator Esther Sung, who argued at Saturday’s hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. “The ban would separate families and cut two-thirds of green-card-based immigration starting tonight, were the ban not stopped.”

US judge blocks President Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants

So what are we up to now, about 30 times a judge has stopped Trump from doing his job in three years? Then the Democrats keep asking why Trump isn't accomplishing more, in spite of all he has accomplished. Look you people, if your leftist organizations would stay out of his way, Trump could be accomplishing much more.

Amazing. And he (and his followers) STILL haven't grasped that what he is trying to do might not be constitutional?

Wait people have to buy gun permits and yet you call this unconstitutional?

If stopping people from coming in who don't have health insurance is unconstitutional, then so is forcing citizens to have it. Yet the SC didn't rule on it that way. The left simply cannot have it both ways.

 

[OKTexas]

Well hi nice to meet cha. Glad you like my work

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think we need a compromise. If the illegals need care and can't afford it, we'll let them take out a loan that has to be repaid. Loans not repaid in a year by go-fund-me shall result in a one-way trip to the person's country of origin with a bill handed to their government for reparations. If somebody else can think of a way to stop bilking the taxpayer about this, please write it objectively for consideration. We don't want to be overbearing, but we also cannot take people sicker than the person treated and make them pay for it, which frequently happens locally and elsewhere. Also, there are some Americans who furnish free care after retirement, as a service to humanity. We need to check out all options to both be kindly to the people who need help and the taxpayer who can't afford insurance because he is paying to raise a family, pays unconcionable local taxes, and may him or herself be poorer than someone who works for a living, even for minimum wages.

We need to stop screaming at each other and go for objectives in the Americanization of foreigners who came here for a free meal and lounging around. Just as many came here for the hope for work and a future of learning the give- and- take of citizenship in this great nation. The free meal and lounging arounders, we need a place to convince them that working for a living and contributing their part to society is a requirement and is expected of natives who grew up here and those who truly wish to join the nation that so far has benefitted the other nations with our interference with political bullies who take but do not give back to their sundry countries.

And that's what I think. We need a balance in dealing with strangers who claim they want to be a part of what America stands for. If we make ourselves servants to the criminal in people who only want to take advantage sans returning, we're promoting our own slavery. That is a bad option, but patience in nuturing newcomers is a better one.

I pray for this nation to find the solution without harassing each other to death.

There problem is, just like asylum seekers, once they're in the country, they hide out never to be seen again. They find their way to some sanctuary city somewhere, and the local authorities can't report them, even if they commit a crime.

Many of these green card people are the problem, because they overstay their Visa and simply lurk in the shadows for God knows how many years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This will be going to a higher court. Bet on it.

Not yet, because he said he's going to stall it for about a month, then he'll likely stall it again.

Yes, it will eventually make it to a higher court, but until that time, those people can still keep coming into this country which is what this judges wants.

 

[Slade3200]

man, you’re taking deplorable to a whole new level. Claiming words from the first continental congress are your own... grow up man, you get more and more pathetic the deeper you dig.

… it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

The First Continental Congress - Providence Forum

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

Yep, people that want to subvert the law. They need to learn that no alien is entitled to entry into the US, there are rules and laws.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Damn you're full of it.

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]


Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

.

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

 

[Slade3200]

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

Yep, people that want to subvert the law. They need to learn that no alien is entitled to entry into the US, there are rules and laws.

.

Yup, no doubt