Travel Ban 2.0 DejaVu?

[Ray From Cleveland]

IKR? I hate he is trampling on the 1.7B muslims in those 6 countries constitutional rights.

It's about OUR gov targeting a specific religion. Which it can not do .

Please elaborate

The first amendment . The whole establishment clause if you want to get specific . The gov can't favor one religion over another .

Foreigners overseas don't have Constitutional rights. If they did, that means if they come here for any reason, they would be allowed to own firearms and vote.

It's not about the foreigners . It's about the constitutional limitations on the prezs/ government authority.

He's putting a temporary hold on people from select countries. Nothing unconstitutional about it. It's within his authority to do so.

 

[Timmy]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

 

[OldLady]

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.

So you think undermining our justice system is what this country is about?

I consider the Executive Order heinous.

Not nearly as heinous as judicial activism or judicial legislation.

A judges job is to interpret the law--not agree or disagree with it. When a judge rules that a law on the books for decades is not allowed to be used because "he" doesn't like the law, that's when we should start removing such judges from the bench. There is nothing more un-American than abusing your power as a judge.

The judges in this go-round haven't said they don't agree with the E.O. They say it's got something to do with its intent as a Muslim ban. If they're wrong, they'll get reversed and their bosses can look at their behavior. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not about to make legal decisions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

That's different because he would be banning people of a certain religion. That's not the case here. Most Muslims can still enter the country. However, if DumBama wanted to ban people from a country that was mostly Christian, that's legal.

 

[Timmy]

It's about OUR gov targeting a specific religion. Which it can not do .

Please elaborate

The first amendment . The whole establishment clause if you want to get specific . The gov can't favor one religion over another .

Foreigners overseas don't have Constitutional rights. If they did, that means if they come here for any reason, they would be allowed to own firearms and vote.

It's not about the foreigners . It's about the constitutional limitations on the prezs/ government authority.

He's putting a temporary hold on people from select countries. Nothing unconstitutional about it. It's within his authority to do so.

He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one . And his statements make it clear that is a religious motive . Which violates the 1st.

 

[OldLady]

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.

So you think undermining our justice system is what this country is about?

I consider the Executive Order heinous.

Not nearly as heinous as judicial activism or judicial legislation.

A judges job is to interpret the law--not agree or disagree with it. When a judge rules that a law on the books for decades is not allowed to be used because "he" doesn't like the law, that's when we should start removing such judges from the bench. There is nothing more un-American than abusing your power as a judge.

And there's nothing more American than everyone thinking they're a lawyer.

 

[Kosh]

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."

Travel ban under Obama good, travel ban under Trump bad..

According to the New York Times, the Obama administration also required new background checks for visa applicants from Iraq after the Bowling Green incident. Lawmakers at a 2012 congressional hearing also indicated that the Department of Homeland Security expanded screening to the Iraqi refugees already settled in the United States.

See how the far left dronie mentality works?

There is nothing wrong with new background checks or expanded screening. I thought that was what this whole thing was supposed to be about? Obama put a limited halt on people coming from one country, but it wasn't a blanket country-wide ban--there were exceptions--and it had a specific antecedent.

Wrong!

See how the far left will excuse Obama!

Yet they agree with Trump and don't even know it!

No. Right. Read Kosh's article (NYT). It didn't go even as far as I originally thought.

The irony of that comment from a far left drone!

So show us Trump's EO and dhow all the parts you disagree with from the actual EO!

So far you are showing that you do not like this because you male rich white masters tell you to be against it!

 

[Timmy]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

That's different because he would be banning people of a certain religion. That's not the case here. Most Muslims can still enter the country. However, if DumBama wanted to ban people from a country that was mostly Christian, that's legal.

Just because it doesn't ban ALL. Muslims , doesn't mean it's not a violation of the con.

Imagine a law that banned all ammo clips . You going to argue it's not a gun ban "because you can still own a revolver" .

 

[TNHarley]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

No idiot.
Are you going to explain how this violates the COTUS or not?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So you think undermining our justice system is what this country is about?

I consider the Executive Order heinous.

Not nearly as heinous as judicial activism or judicial legislation.

A judges job is to interpret the law--not agree or disagree with it. When a judge rules that a law on the books for decades is not allowed to be used because "he" doesn't like the law, that's when we should start removing such judges from the bench. There is nothing more un-American than abusing your power as a judge.

The judges in this go-round haven't said they don't agree with the E.O. They say it's got something to do with its intent as a Muslim ban. If they're wrong, they'll get reversed and their bosses can look at their behavior. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not about to make legal decisions.

He can't say that using a law on the books is "now" a ban on any religion--especially when religion wasn't even mentioned in the executive order. That's an opinion--not a fact. The law states that Trump can ban anybody from any group he desires. This judge ruled that he can't. That's judicial legislation.

 

[TNHarley]

[
He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one .

You are full of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

That's different because he would be banning people of a certain religion. That's not the case here. Most Muslims can still enter the country. However, if DumBama wanted to ban people from a country that was mostly Christian, that's legal.

Just because it doesn't ban ALL. Muslims , doesn't mean it's not a violation of the con.

Imagine a law that banned all ammo clips . You going to argue it's not a gun ban "because you can still own a revolver" .

What it means is that it's not a ban on Muslims since Muslims can still come to this country.

 

[TNHarley]

To all of you asking, YES! IF this is a politically motivated decision by the courts, I'm happy they're doing it. They'll be reversed if it isn't valid. I hate this ban and I am grateful for every day our doors stay open.

I sure hope I never hear anything from you about the law not being applied or something equivalent

 

[Timmy]

[
He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one .

You are full of it.

Oh yeah?

Then tell me . Why did Trump water it down instead of appealing ?

Why is Iraq magically off the new list ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So you think undermining our justice system is what this country is about?

I consider the Executive Order heinous.

Not nearly as heinous as judicial activism or judicial legislation.

A judges job is to interpret the law--not agree or disagree with it. When a judge rules that a law on the books for decades is not allowed to be used because "he" doesn't like the law, that's when we should start removing such judges from the bench. There is nothing more un-American than abusing your power as a judge.

And there's nothing more American than everyone thinking they're a lawyer.

You don't need to be a layer to read law. It's written in plain English with no ambiguity whatsoever. I'll even underline the main parts of the law, and you tell me if you need to be a lawyer or not to understand it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please elaborate

The first amendment . The whole establishment clause if you want to get specific . The gov can't favor one religion over another .

Foreigners overseas don't have Constitutional rights. If they did, that means if they come here for any reason, they would be allowed to own firearms and vote.

It's not about the foreigners . It's about the constitutional limitations on the prezs/ government authority.

He's putting a temporary hold on people from select countries. Nothing unconstitutional about it. It's within his authority to do so.

He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one . And his statements make it clear that is a religious motive . Which violates the 1st.

One has nothing to do with the other. He can make as many statements as he likes, but as long as it's not in the order, it's irrelevant.

And no, he doesn't need any reason to create this ban. That's in the law as well.

 

[TNHarley]

[
He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one .

You are full of it.

Oh yeah?

Then tell me . Why did Trump water it down instead of appealing ?

Why is Iraq magically off the new list ?

we are talking about the SECOND one.
He has plenty of reasons. I have put them in this thread.
Now, are you going to tell me how it violates the COTUS or not?

 

[Timmy]

So you righties think Trump has the power to do whatever with immigration ?

Meaning if Obama the secret Muslim said he would ban all Christians from entering the us , that would be fine ?

That's different because he would be banning people of a certain religion. That's not the case here. Most Muslims can still enter the country. However, if DumBama wanted to ban people from a country that was mostly Christian, that's legal.

Just because it doesn't ban ALL. Muslims , doesn't mean it's not a violation of the con.

Imagine a law that banned all ammo clips . You going to argue it's not a gun ban "because you can still own a revolver" .

What it means is that it's not a ban on Muslims since Muslims can still come to this country.

Sure thing Jim Crow . You think fed court judges are blind idiots ?

 

[Timmy]

[
He still needs a legit reason . He doesn't have one .

You are full of it.

Oh yeah?

Then tell me . Why did Trump water it down instead of appealing ?

Why is Iraq magically off the new list ?

we are talking about the SECOND one.
He has plenty of reasons. I have put them in this thread.
Now, are you going to tell me how it violates the COTUS or not?

Like I've said a couple times in this thread .

It violates the 1st amendment . The gov can not establish or target a specific religion .

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

But it is fear. Fear of trump doing a good job. It is about hatred. Hatred of people who want to keep this nation safe