Foiled Again!

[Siete]

Breaking on MSNBC, no link yet. Hang on, I'll check again.

I wanted to post it first because I never get to start threads!

feel free to start a thread any time ..

in the last eight years all of the RussianWingers started more Obama Sucks threads than they have combined IQ points.

 

[The Original Tree]

To cloak lawlessness in the form of a cartoon version of Justice is the height of hypocrisy.

A lawless Liberal Judge had to break the law to render this stay.

Anyone that can cite one statute the judge used in a valid way or show one precedent I will buy dinner for.

Just more obstructionism. Eventually the stay will have to be lifted and it has no basis in law.

We are a sovereign nation and have the right to restrict or expand legal immigration at will or bar whom we desire whenever we desire whether it be individuals, or groups of nations.

 

[Avatar4321]

He said it violated the establishment clause. What church does the executive order establish as a state church? It will be overturnred by the first appeal hearing

Unlikely, just like the last time.

Maybe you should read what some LAWYERS have to say about it, instead of Sean Hannity?

Okay I will.

So i reread what I wrote. And that lawyer is spot on.

If you disagree simply tell me what church the executive order establishes

 

[Siete]

To cloak lawlessness in the form of a cartoon version of Justice is the height of hypocrisy.

A lawless Liberal Judge had to break the law to render this stay.

Anyone that can cite one statute the judge used in a valid way one precedent I will by dinner for.

Just more obstructionism. Eventually the stay will have to be lifted and it has no basis in law.

and you got your sheepskin where again ?

 

[fncceo]

How do you come on on top when you lose every battle?

 

[BoSoxGal]

You're just . . . sorry, but clueless.

Do you even understand how judicial review works?

Very basic: Someone challenges a law and sets forth their basis for why the law violates the Constitution. The judiciary then reads the law, considers the evidence and context in which the law was created (substitute EO for law in this case) and applies precedent in interpretation of the law vis a vis the Constitution.

In this case, the government has not been able to overcome the presumption that this is a MUSLIM travel ban, which implicates the establishment clause because the government can create NO LAW that discriminates based on RELIGION.

Does that help? If not my prescription is high school civics.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're just . . . sorry, but clueless.

Do you even understand how judicial review works?

Very basic: Someone challenges a law and sets forth their basis for why the law violates the Constitution. The judiciary then reads the law, considers the evidence and context in which the law was created (substitute EO for law in this case) and applies precedent in interpretation of the law vis a vis the Constitution.

In this case, the government has not been able to overcome the presumption that this is a MUSLIM travel ban, which implicates the establishment clause because the government can create NO LAW that discriminates based on RELIGION.

Does that help? If not my prescription is high school civics.

You know, it helps if you quote who you are responding to. Makes it easier for people to follow the conversation.

And you need to do some homework because you don't have a clue what you're talkinf about!

The executive order isn't a Muslim ban. How do I know? Because it stops immigrants regardless of what their religion is. And be cause it targets only a fraction of Muslim majority countries. Muslims of all types are still free to enter the country from nations not on the list.

There are two religion clauses in the first amendment. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The establishment clause prevents Congress from creating a state church. The executive order doesn't create a state church. In fact if memory serves, it doesn't mention religion at all.

So what church or even religion does the executive order establish? If you can't answer there is no violation. Even if we use a liberal interpretation of case law you can't find any religion government is somehow forcing on anybody by keeping people of all reliona from certain countries out.

As for the free exercise clause, no one is invoking. No violation anyway because the executive order doesn't stop anyone from practicing their religion

 

[BoSoxGal]

You're just . . . sorry, but clueless.

Do you even understand how judicial review works?

Very basic: Someone challenges a law and sets forth their basis for why the law violates the Constitution. The judiciary then reads the law, considers the evidence and context in which the law was created (substitute EO for law in this case) and applies precedent in interpretation of the law vis a vis the Constitution.

In this case, the government has not been able to overcome the presumption that this is a MUSLIM travel ban, which implicates the establishment clause because the government can create NO LAW that discriminates based on RELIGION.

Does that help? If not my prescription is high school civics.

You know, it helps if you quote who you are responding to. Makes it easier for people to follow the conversation.

And you need to do some homework because you don't have a clue what you're talkinf about!

The executive order isn't a Muslim ban. How do I know? Because it stops immigrants regardless of what their religion is. And be cause it targets only a fraction of Muslim majority countries. Muslims of all types are still free to enter the country from nations not on the list.

There are two religion clauses in the first amendment. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The establishment clause prevents Congress from creating a state church. The executive order doesn't create a state church. In fact if memory serves, it doesn't mention religion at all.

So what church or even religion does the executive order establish? If you can't answer there is no violation. Even if we use a liberal interpretation of case law you can't find any religion government is somehow forcing on anybody by keeping people of all reliona from certain countries out.

As for the free exercise clause, no one is invoking. No violation anyway because the executive order doesn't stop anyone from practicing their religion

Uh, nope. You've got the analysis and many of the facts totally wrong.

But then the federal judge got his law degree at Harvard, I got mine at Georgetown, and yours is from what - university of Alex Jones, or FAUX News?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Maybe it is time for the nuclear option, then: close the borders. No US passport, you are turned away, no exceptions.