What did Harvard Law Professor Say About Likely Outcome of Trump's Travel Ban?

[saveliberty]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Since the Executive branch is in charge of National Security. The Ninth District has been a liberal den for a long times. They are used to being reversed in the SC.

 

[saveliberty]

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Nope, they are legislating from the bench. A big no--no.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal law professor, but an honest one. He says the Trump travel ban will likely be upheld at the SC. I have not heard any of the judges contest the legality of this travel ban, but rather so-called harm to the states that fied lawsuits.. We are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of selective enforcement of our laws. Does this bode well for our country?

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Why are you pro-Muslim and pro-Wetback?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Nope, they are legislating from the bench. A big no--no.

True. They cited no statute for the basis of the ruling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep, he needs to have his team come up with a new E/O that'll pass muster, and move onward... it could take too long to work it through the courts, and if this is for security as said, the best option is to write a new E/O.

Trump will not withdraw and rewrite the EO; unless some adults in the Republican Party will stand up and do an intervention; his narcissism and megalomania will prevent his ever admitting a mistake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal law professor, but an honest one. He says the Trump travel ban will likely be upheld at the SC. I have not heard any of the judges contest the legality of this travel ban, but rather so-called harm to the states that fied lawsuits.. We are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of selective enforcement of our laws. Does this bode well for our country?

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Why are you pro-Muslim and pro-Wetback?

Why are you a bigot and a racist?

 

[saveliberty]

dershowitz isn't liberal.

Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia

They say he is a liberal.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

 

[Rob37]

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal law professor, but an honest one. He says the Trump travel ban will likely be upheld at the SC. I have not heard any of the judges contest the legality of this travel ban, but rather so-called harm to the states that fied lawsuits.. We are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of selective enforcement of our laws. Does this bode well for our country?

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Thank you, Jillian, for spewing more needlessly negative and disheartening insults. You are a miserable person.

 

[jc456]

Yep, he needs to have his team come up with a new E/O that'll pass muster, and move onward... it could take too long to work it through the courts, and if this is for security as said, the best option is to write a new E/O.

Trump will not withdraw and rewrite the EO; unless some adults in the Republican Party will stand up and do an intervention; his narcissism and megalomania will prevent his ever admitting a mistake.

admit what?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Why are you a bigot and a racist?

Why are you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Really?

Because the executive power is vested in the judiciary?

Take a civics class, shittingbull.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Actually, the Attorney General has a lot to say in that section of law.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal law professor, but an honest one. He says the Trump travel ban will likely be upheld at the SC. I have not heard any of the judges contest the legality of this travel ban, but rather so-called harm to the states that fied lawsuits.. We are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of selective enforcement of our laws. Does this bode well for our country?

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

dershowitz isn't liberal.

and what he said, as long as one isn't lying like you are....is that he thought it might be upheld in part and largely struck down.

thanks for playing

btw, idiot... the judges aren't "contesting" anything. they are ruling....which is their right and duty as a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

i wish you idiot wingers would stop whining

Why are you pro-Muslim and pro-Wetback?

Why are you a bigot and a racist?

Advocating for the original people the founders specifically created this country for via the Naturalization Act of 1790 is neither bigoted or racist, it's patriotic!

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Really?

Because the executive power is vested in the judiciary?

Take a civics class, shittingbull.

All presidential actions are subject to judicial review if someone has standing to challenge it.

 

[koshergrl]

We need better judges in order to stop this liberal madness!

Redistrict the ninth.

And impeach the FUCK out of judges who legislate from the bench.

Start with Anna Brown, the whore who denied the remaining defendants in the Malheur protest trial, a jury trial.

BTW, having a jury trial is a constitutional right.

Judge's order re: bench trial for misdemeanor charges

 

[jc456]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Really?

Because the executive power is vested in the judiciary?

Take a civics class, shittingbull.

All presidential actions are subject to judicial review if someone has standing to challenge it.

except in a national security situation like this. It wasn't legal what the courts did. sorry. But again, Trump can just make a new EO. and we'll get it up since he has the authority to do so. Why do we go to the congress for war and not the courts then?

there has yet to be a reason submitted by either court for the stand. None. And so far no lawyer has been able to explain how they can overrule the president who has intelligence Agencies briefing him. It is just libturds being libturds at the court level. politics isn't to be in national security. so fk them. here:

D.C. AG: Rationale behind Trump's order not established

D.C. AG: Rationale behind Trump's order not established
Feb. 09, 2017 - 10:10 - Tucker takes on D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine on a federal appeals court in San Francisco upholding the suspension of President Trump's controversial immigration order #Tucker

I love how four judges in the US said fk you to 330 million americans. wow. Libturds are all about ending the US.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Really?

Because the executive power is vested in the judiciary?

Take a civics class, shittingbull.

All presidential actions are subject to judicial review if someone has standing to challenge it.

except in a national security situation like this. It wasn't legal what the courts did. sorry. But again, Trump can just make a new EO. and we'll get it up since he has the authority to do so. Why do we go to the congress for war and not the courts then?

there has yet to be a reason submitted by either court for the stand. None. And so far no lawyer has been able to explain how they can overrule the president who has intelligence Agencies briefing him. It is just libturds being libturds at the court level. politics isn't to be in national security. so fk them

Yes, Adolf Trump can create a NEW EO - since the first one was declared illegal.

 

[OldLady]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

The court disagreed with that pretty strenuously in its ruling, and if they take THAT argument to the Supreme Court, they're truly nuts. It will go into effect eventually, Timmy. I'm hoping they've completed the vetting review by then and won't need it. But I'm dreaming, I'm sure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

All presidential actions are subject to judicial review if someone has standing to challenge it.

You don't know what "judicial review" is, shittingbull.

Anything under the sun can be the subject of a lawsuit, but a lawsuit is not "judicial review."

Tell me this, does Soros train you to say that the State of Washington has the authority to craft and conduct a foreign policy as the 9th circus clowns of appall ruled? Based on what article or amendment to the United States Constitution?

Clearly, with a 5th pro-Constitution Justice on the bench, the circus show will be reversed. But what if this goes to the SCOTUS before Gorsuch is confirmed?

• Ginsburg is a Marxist cvnt who wants nothing more than to destroy this nation before she goes to get her just rewards in the burning fires of hell.
• Kagan is a Marxist cvnt who wants to destroy the nation on behalf of Soros and the international cabal of socialist dictators he represents.
• Sotomayor has an IQ of about 10 and does exactly what Kagan tells her to do

So there are three that will act against America every time, the trio of pure evil.

Now you ASSUME that Breyer will act against the interests of America in every case, and he is indeed far left and anti-liberty in regard to social issues.

But he is not part of the trio of pure evil. In fact Breyer has been consistently CONSERVATIVE on matters of national security.

Stephen Breyer

I would bet that if the SCOTUS ruled today, it would be 5 to 3 in favor of the vetting process, throwing the circus clown abomination in the trash heap where it belongs.