45's Muslim Ban Gets Smacked Down Again

[Lastamender]

Trump is on record "Musilms"

drones spin Muslims to "countries"

a sitting Judge rules .. board drones say he's wrong.

the sitting Judge, or board drones ?

gee, let me ponder that one.

Trumps record started the day he was inaugurated.

 

[Timmy]

1) it doesn't just cover citizens .

2). It's not about would be immigrants from other countries .

The government can not favor or target a specific religion. That's the base of the decision .

Unless that EO says they are targeting Muslims, because there is no other way to prove it, and legally that is the way it goes. The judge is basing his decision on hearsay and opinion. Neither of those apply here in a court of law.

DipshitDon is ON RECORD running his mouth ... no HEARSAY about it ..


At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

So tell the class, was the EO a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the US? If your answer is no then you're admitting the judge is full of shit.

Holy jimm crow, do you think the judges are idiots ? The dons own words are proof!

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

What part of the establishment clause don't you understand?

 

[OKTexas]

Unless that EO says they are targeting Muslims, because there is no other way to prove it, and legally that is the way it goes. The judge is basing his decision on hearsay and opinion. Neither of those apply here in a court of law.

DipshitDon is ON RECORD running his mouth ... no HEARSAY about it ..


At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

So tell the class, was the EO a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the US? If your answer is no then you're admitting the judge is full of shit.

Holy jimm crow, do you think the judges are idiots ? The dons own words are proof!

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

What part of the establishment clause don't you understand?

Explain exactly what was established. Also do you know what the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment says?

 

[radical right]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

 

[OKTexas]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

 

[whitehall]

Radical low information lefties celebrate left wing judges striking down President Trump's executive order intended to protect Americans from radical Islamic radicals when everyone including low information left wing radicals understand that they would be among the first to be executed under Sharia law. Go figure.

 

[brummelben]

Radical low information lefties celebrate left wing judges striking down President Trump's executive order intended to protect Americans from radical Islamic radicals when everyone including low information left wing radicals understand that they would be among the first to be executed under Sharia law. Go figure.

There is no Sharia law in the US and you have no ******* idea what Sharia law is **********

 

[radical right]

Run along child until you can cite a legal precedence to support your so called judge.

There is little difference between a crime, and an attempted crime. Actually in the eyes of the law, they are the same. Same mens rea, aka guilty mind, the only difference is often random luck. So the judge is basing his ruling on Trumps intent and attempt.

 

[brummelben]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Holy jimm crow, do you think the judges are idiots ? The dons own words are proof!

I think this judge is a judicial activist implementing his own will over Constitutional law.

 

[radical right]

Radical low information lefties celebrate left wing judges striking down President Trump's executive order intended to protect Americans from radical Islamic radicals ....

Does that mean you acknowledge Trumps eo was a muslim ban?

 

[OKTexas]

Run along child until you can cite a legal precedence to support your so called judge.

There is little difference between a crime, and an attempted crime. Actually in the eyes of the law, they are the same. Same mens rea, aka guilty mind, the only difference is often random luck. So the judge is basing his ruling on Trumps intent and attempt.

No the judge is basing his decision on his own political bias and not the law or constitution as required. I've posted both supreme court precedents and the law, show how the judge properly applied either.

 

[OKTexas]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

Yes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

Yes

 

[brummelben]

Holy jimm crow, do you think the judges are idiots ? The dons own words are proof!

I think this judge is a judicial activist implementing his own will over Constitutional law.

WTF do you know about the Constitution and laws. Have you a law degree and a specialty in constitutional law? If not, tell us that this is your opinion not fact

 

[radical right]

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

If Trumps 'wall' isn't 100% wall, there will be fences, gates, and non-wall sections. Does that mean it's not a wall?

If Trumps muslim ban isn't 100%, it's starting with only 6-7 countries. Does that mean it's not a ban?

 

[brummelben]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

Yes.

yes, they are are free to enter the US, when Muslims are not

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

WTF do you know about the Constitution and laws. Have you a law degree and a specialty in constitutional law? If not, tell us that this is your opinion not fact

It's actually quite simple. The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens outside our borders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only thing his words prove is he was more constrained and didn't do what he might like to do. If you take note, not one of these so called judges have addressed the underlying law or the constitutional powers of the president. So yeah, they're idiots.

This is where Trump is his own worst enemy. Trump was very successful as pushing his idea of a muslim ban, and his promise that he would enact one as soon as he got into office. Hence when Trumps first eo's came out, if you take him at his word, he intended it to be a ban on muslims.

Laws can violate the law because the laws effect is discriminatory, intended or not, and laws can violate the law because of their intent to be discriminatory, effective or not.

Once again, explain how it could be a muslim ban when it didn't effect 90% of the muslims.

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

Yes.

yes, they are are free to enter the US, when Muslims are not

That is false. The ban applied to every citizen of those nations.

 

[brummelben]

Does it affect Christians from those countries, asshole?

Yes

absolutely not