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

[Steve_McGarrett]

Breaking Update:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3523524/posts

 

[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

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

but it wasn't but that's ok. playing politics with peoples lives is a typical play for libturds. We understand they wish to end the US as a country. just more evidence of it at the liberal judicial level.

 

[jc456]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no evidence where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

 

[jc456]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

 

[jc456]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

show me the precedent that says that.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no evidence where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

The Japs didn't bomb Pearl - until they did.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

show me the precedent that says that.

For your further enlightenment...

Adjudicating Classified Information - St. John's Law Scholarship

 

[jc456]

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no case where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

sure they do. maybe SCOTUS, but that's it.

Nope, also lower courts as well.

show me the precedent that says that.

For your further enlightenment...

Adjudicating Classified Information - St. John's Law Scholarship

can you give me the abstract from it that proves your point?

 

[NoNukes]

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 ?

Name one Obama EO that was challenged.

They were sane and correct.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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 ?

In this case, he is.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

 

[Rustic]

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.

actually what I found intensly funny was the appeals left wanted the president to present classified information on terrorist activity to justify it. You just can't make this shit up folks.

As was thoroughly discussed last night on Rachel Maddow - courts routinely review classified information before ruling on a case - including TOP SECRET. Trump's team chose not to provide any - probably because there is no evidence where anyone from any of those 7 Muslim countries ever cause the death of anyone on American soil.

Washington Redskin
Just because they have not succeeded does not mean that those countries are not full of terrorist camps... you need to stay out of the firewater water

 

[NoNukes]

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 ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

 

[jc456]

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 ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

yep

 

[Care4all]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

 

[Care4all]

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 ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

 

[Care4all]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...