Yep, another judge stops Trump from MAGA

[Slade3200]

what exactly am I full of? Your statement has nothing to do with my post. You clearly didn’t follow the conversation.

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

 

[CWayne]

Appeal it, win, and then move on.

 

[OKTexas]

Appeal it, win, and then move on.

No, it's time the feds start going after the people who are filing these nuisance law suits for the costs. We start draining their bank accounts they'll stop this shit.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just pointing out that even the folks who built this country were concerned about public charges long before there was a federal government. The judge is the one ignoring the law and failing to fulfill his oath of office.

.

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

 

[beautress]

Rulings are made on arguments based on written law. Read a ruling and it will be explained. You are only looking at one side of the equation and presenting it as fact, but that’s not honest or real

It's very honest and real.

What is the job of a judge? A judge is used to determine if laws were followed or not. It's that simple. You can argue the law all you like, but it's the judges job to rule if laws were followed properly.

Now if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judge to change or ignore it. That's up to your representatives. Judges don't (or are not supposed to) write laws on the bench.

So it's like this: Trump made a ruling following written laws that were passed by Congress. This judge (like most of the leftist judges) said I don't care about the law. You're in my town breathing my air. What do you think this is, the United States of America where the country is ruled by silly laws? I make the laws here, not Congress.

i agree with your description of a judges role. But you claim to be honest and then make false claims like...

“This judge (like most of the leftist judges) said I don't care about the law. You're in my town breathing my air. What do you think this is, the United States of America where the country is ruled by silly laws? I make the laws here, not Congress”

We both know that’s not true, so why don’t you just be honest and post the judges real reason for the ruling and then you can state what you disagree with.

What other reason can a judge have for ignoring the law given the fact he was an Obama appointee, who is all behind immigration like the rest of the party?

Let me put it another way:

Let's say after work tomorrow, you and a couple of coworkers decide to stop at Applebee's for some dinner and drinks. On the way home, you get into an accident. The police come out, smell alcohol on your breath, and request you take some tests. You pass the tests, and your BAC was .06.

When you go to court, the judge sites you for being under the influence and getting into an accident. You argue the point that being under the influence in your state is .08. You blew .02 under that limit.

The judge says he doesn't care. You shouldn't have been drinking in the first place. Furthermore, as far as he's concerned, you were drunk enough at .06. First offense for DUI in your state is a suspended license for 30 days, and up to three days in jail. But the judge suspends your license for year, and sentences you to 30 days in jail. Would you find this acceptable, or would you call that a rogue court?

Sure, you will win in appeals, but that takes a lot of time and more money. The question is, should that judge be a judge in the first place given his ruling?

your article nor you have tried to explain the reason the judge ordered the restraining order. You are painting it as a jidge making law and not enforcing the law which isn’t true. Here is a better article that actually explains what the judge did and why...

You gotta present both sides of the argument if you want to be respected Ray... otherwise you come off as a partisan hack

Federal judge in Oregon temporarily bars President Trump from restricting visas for immigrants without health insurance

Thanks for wasting my time. It told me nothing more than I already knew. He's making up some BS to support his commie ruling.

Simon granted temporary relief in the public’s interest, saying it appeared the new mandate conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act and related federal health care law, and is “arbitrary and capricious.’’ He scheduled a hearing for Nov. 22 to consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the case.

Well if it conflicts with anything, then it's been conflicting since the 1960's when Code 1182 was passed. What Fn federal healthcare law is this commie referring to? And what's arbitrary about it? ALL people with Visa's must meet that requirement. It's not "some" green card applicants, applicants from certain places, it applies to all.

So what is the real reason?

The judge was swayed by plaintiffs’ arguments that the new practice, if permitted to start Sunday, “would essentially shut down all or most of the country’s immigration system right now,’’''

BINGO! We have a winner here. Given the fact that the Democrat party evolved (I know how you leftists love that word) into the anti-white party, stopping people of color would ruin their plans on making whites a minority ASAP. After all, let's face it, that's what they are really trying to do.

You see, once whites are wiped out as the majority, that gives the commies an opportunity to turn us into a single-party government forever, and they are becoming impatient about getting that power.

So the bottom line here is he's not ruling based on any stupid laws he cited, he's ruling on the goal of the real Communists, the Democrat party.

You really nailed it, Mr. Ray From Cleveland. Thank you.

 

[Slade3200]

so what was I full of shit about?

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Insinuating Trump wasn't following the law. It's his responsibility to insure new immigrants have the necessary support so they will not become "public charges". It's really a simple concept that even you commies should be able to understand.

.

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

 

[Slade3200]

that concept is just fine. If he went through the legal process to institute his plan then all should be good. Obviously some people thought he didn’t and they are challenging it in court.

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what the challenge is about. Read what the plaintiffs said.

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

 

[Slade3200]

I did

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then perhaps you forgot what it said. From your source:

On Wednesday, seven plaintiffs from across the country filed the nation’s first lawsuit in federal court in Portland that challenges the new rule as arbitrary, an “abuse of discretion” and discriminatory.

It says noting about any legal process or procedure.

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

 

[Slade3200]

do you not understand what they are challenging Ray? I thought you read the article I sent you... do I really need to explain it?

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I not only read it, I copied/ pasted the complaint. They called it arbitrary, it is not. They said it's an abuse of discretion, it is not. The President has the power of discretion and he is not abusing it. And it is not discriminatory since he didn't highlight any particular group.

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

 

[Slade3200]

he isnt abusing it by your Perception but they they he is and it is their job to make a case for that

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account... Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

The actions of the cop also can be a factor... is he ticketing people who accidentally step outside the crosswalk line, targeting people based on race? Etc etc

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I think first of all, correct your typos because I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. If you meant "they said he is" that does not warrant ignoring laws that were written many years ago. If somebody is challenging a law that has been on the books for a very long time, there is no reason to delay or take sides with their claim. The law is the law, and any real judge would rule on those grounds.

In this particular case, the judge ruled that because somebody is challenging the law, it's as good as Gospel.

In other words, you get a speeding ticket on the highway. Because you believe the speed limit is set too low, a judge rules that you have a valid claim. No real American judge would make such a ruling. You broke the law, you knew you were breaking the law, and if you don't like the law, it's not up to the judiciary to take your side. That's an issue you take up with your state rep or various state representatives.

Until that time comes, the judge is only there to rule on laws on the books, not side with challengers on such law.

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account? Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

It could be, but you still broke the law, and that's what a judge has to rule on.

There are no circumstances in this situation. They simply don't like Trump making advances to our long ongoing immigration problems. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out the white race, and this judge ruled on that alone, no other extenuating circumstances involved. They said it was arbitrary. It is not. It applies to all Visa applicants. They said it was discriminatory. It was not, because Trump didn't single out any group or groups of people. It applies to people from the middle-east to those from Europe. They said it would virtually halt immigration. So what? The President has the authority to do just that.

All complaints are bogus.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry, fat thumbs and I’m on my phone. I’ll proof read better... as for the law... our court system is literally made up of arguments about interpretation of the law and proving arguments. You know this Ray. Very few cases exist that don’t involve each side trying to prove their interpretation of events that fit within the confines of existing laws... that’s what court cases literally are.

Trump has power but not absolute power, if people think he is abusing his power then they have the right to challenge it. That’s what’s happening.

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account? Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

It could be, but you still broke the law, and that's what a judge has to rule on.

There are no circumstances in this situation. They simply don't like Trump making advances to our long ongoing immigration problems. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out the white race, and this judge ruled on that alone, no other extenuating circumstances involved. They said it was arbitrary. It is not. It applies to all Visa applicants. They said it was discriminatory. It was not, because Trump didn't single out any group or groups of people. It applies to people from the middle-east to those from Europe. They said it would virtually halt immigration. So what? The President has the authority to do just that.

All complaints are bogus.

well now you’re defining motive on assumptions of what you think the “dems” agenda is. There are definitely people out there that do what you accuse but that shouldn’t be the default assumption. Here the facts of the case with an open mind and then decide based on those... seems to be what the judge is doing

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The law was written so that yes, the President does have absolute power in this situation. There is simply no contesting it. Unless it's a constitutional issue, the courts have no right to make personal or political judgements on laws passed by Congress. That's not their job. Their job is to rule if the proclamation was made in accordance with the laws written.

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account? Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

It could be, but you still broke the law, and that's what a judge has to rule on.

There are no circumstances in this situation. They simply don't like Trump making advances to our long ongoing immigration problems. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out the white race, and this judge ruled on that alone, no other extenuating circumstances involved. They said it was arbitrary. It is not. It applies to all Visa applicants. They said it was discriminatory. It was not, because Trump didn't single out any group or groups of people. It applies to people from the middle-east to those from Europe. They said it would virtually halt immigration. So what? The President has the authority to do just that.

All complaints are bogus.

well now you’re defining motive on assumptions of what you think the “dems” agenda is. There are definitely people out there that do what you accuse but that shouldn’t be the default assumption. Here the facts of the case with an open mind and then decide based on those... seems to be what the judge is doing

There are no facts of the case except Code 1182 which gives Trump the congressional authority to do exactly what he did. No judge should ever get in the way with stopping a President who clearly used his authority legally and appropriately. They have zero reasons to stop him.

If this judge thought any different, why didn't he rule on the case right now? What else is there to know where he needs a month to figure it out? It's as obvious as the nose on your face. What this commie did was stall the order to allow more foreigners into the country. That means more people who will become illegals by disappearing into our societies never to be seen again as most Visa holders do.

 

[Slade3200]

no you are wrong. Laws and actions can be challenged in the courts, judgements made, appeals made, and even take. To the Supreme Court if need be. That’s how it works... it’s an element of our government .

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account? Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

It could be, but you still broke the law, and that's what a judge has to rule on.

There are no circumstances in this situation. They simply don't like Trump making advances to our long ongoing immigration problems. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out the white race, and this judge ruled on that alone, no other extenuating circumstances involved. They said it was arbitrary. It is not. It applies to all Visa applicants. They said it was discriminatory. It was not, because Trump didn't single out any group or groups of people. It applies to people from the middle-east to those from Europe. They said it would virtually halt immigration. So what? The President has the authority to do just that.

All complaints are bogus.

well now you’re defining motive on assumptions of what you think the “dems” agenda is. There are definitely people out there that do what you accuse but that shouldn’t be the default assumption. Here the facts of the case with an open mind and then decide based on those... seems to be what the judge is doing

There are no facts of the case except Code 1182 which gives Trump the congressional authority to do exactly what he did. No judge should ever get in the way with stopping a President who clearly used his authority legally and appropriately. They have zero reasons to stop him.

If this judge thought any different, why didn't he rule on the case right now? What else is there to know where he needs a month to figure it out? It's as obvious as the nose on your face. What this commie did was stall the order to allow more foreigners into the country. That means more people who will become illegals by disappearing into our societies never to be seen again as most Visa holders do.

Haha, ok Ray, believe that if you want. That’s not how the story reads to me. Sounds pretty damn silly that you think a judge is stalling so more people can illegally sneak into our country. And your basis is that Obama appointed him. The same Obama that deported records amount of illegals. Very funny Ray but get real

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. The only laws that are challenged are those some feel are in violation of constitutional protection. If you got a ticket for jaywalking, and the judge is against jaywalking tickets, he or she is not supposed to be making judgement on that. They simply look at the law, decide the legality of the fine, and tell you it's an issue between you and your law makers, in such case, your city Council.

In this instance, all the judge did was confirm the complaint and agreed with it. Every reason he stated for stopping the measure was pure lies and misrepresentation. He should have thrown it out of court, and tell the plaintiffs to contact their Congress person. There was no constitutional issue here. He simply didn't like what Trump did.

When we have judges stopping our executive branch from legally exercising their duties, the judiciary has way too much power and needs to be changed. We cannot let anymore Democrat Presidents in, because tyranny is what happens when they put in their comrades in the justice system.

true. But a case has to be made that the person was jay walking and external factors can be taken into account? Did somebody jaywalk to save a kid from getting hit by a car?

It could be, but you still broke the law, and that's what a judge has to rule on.

There are no circumstances in this situation. They simply don't like Trump making advances to our long ongoing immigration problems. The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out the white race, and this judge ruled on that alone, no other extenuating circumstances involved. They said it was arbitrary. It is not. It applies to all Visa applicants. They said it was discriminatory. It was not, because Trump didn't single out any group or groups of people. It applies to people from the middle-east to those from Europe. They said it would virtually halt immigration. So what? The President has the authority to do just that.

All complaints are bogus.

well now you’re defining motive on assumptions of what you think the “dems” agenda is. There are definitely people out there that do what you accuse but that shouldn’t be the default assumption. Here the facts of the case with an open mind and then decide based on those... seems to be what the judge is doing

There are no facts of the case except Code 1182 which gives Trump the congressional authority to do exactly what he did. No judge should ever get in the way with stopping a President who clearly used his authority legally and appropriately. They have zero reasons to stop him.

If this judge thought any different, why didn't he rule on the case right now? What else is there to know where he needs a month to figure it out? It's as obvious as the nose on your face. What this commie did was stall the order to allow more foreigners into the country. That means more people who will become illegals by disappearing into our societies never to be seen again as most Visa holders do.

Haha, ok Ray, believe that if you want. That’s not how the story reads to me. Sounds pretty damn silly that you think a judge is stalling so more people can illegally sneak into our country. And your basis is that Obama appointed him. The same Obama that deported records amount of illegals. Very funny Ray but get real

It can't get much more real than what I'm saying, because there is only one way to read this. Trump has the executive authority by the US Congress to do what he did. This judge is saying he doesn't care about the law or executive authority. He doesn't like it, so he's going to stop it.

 

[rightwinger]

Did Melania have healthcare when she came here?