Court rules against Travel Ban
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
New Pat Buchanan column. Highly suggested:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/
Where is all the winning he promised? He cannot even win at being a fascist!
Why is he appealing this ruling? It will take months..
Meantime, our national security is at risk.
Shit-can it immediately, Mr. President, and write a new EO that's Constitutional!!!
Meantime, our national security is at risk.
Shit-can it immediately, Mr. President, and write a new EO that's Constitutional!!!
You want me to write one? That's easy.
If you want to come to America you have to draw a picture of Mohamed.
If you want to come to America you have to draw a picture of Mohamed.
He's got a golden opportunity to out-flank the 9th Circuit, look like a genius and have >90pct. public support.
Anytime the judiciary offers you a unanimous win Mr. President--take it!!!
(BTW--You need a frikking win!!!!!)
Anytime the judiciary offers you a unanimous win Mr. President--take it!!!
(BTW--You need a frikking win!!!!!)
Shit. I agree with cup. I may kms now...
He should kill it, and write a new one that just states no new visas will be issued for 90 days from countries listed in Obama's list. Keep it simple.
He should kill it, and write a new one that just states no new visas will be issued for 90 days from countries listed in Obama's list. Keep it simple.
You laugh, but the majority of people in this country side with Trump on this issue, and the courts going political instead of legal, actually will be a winning issue for Trump.
Here's David's idea of winning...........
Overheard at dinner tonight from a 9 YO - "why did the US hire a guy with such small hands to build a big wall, doesn't make sense..."
The ellipsis might be genetic.
The ellipsis might be genetic.
For starters--new EO
WTF??!--Drop the inanity that the executive branch in matters of national security can't be reviewed by the judicial branch! We ain't a banana republic (yet!)
Drop any religious mention in the EO!--Don't do it Mr. President--you'll lose!!!
You can't put Muslims at back of the bus and the Christians in front.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or the free exercise thereof."
"We're leaving you a republic if you can keep it."--B. Franklin
WTF??!--Drop the inanity that the executive branch in matters of national security can't be reviewed by the judicial branch! We ain't a banana republic (yet!)
Drop any religious mention in the EO!--Don't do it Mr. President--you'll lose!!!
You can't put Muslims at back of the bus and the Christians in front.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or the free exercise thereof."
"We're leaving you a republic if you can keep it."--B. Franklin
The courts went legal...full stop.
Whe. Did legality start depending upon opinions of people?
Most overturned court in the U.S.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/liberal-ninth-circuit-court-overturned-average-80-time/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/liberal-ninth-circuit-court-overturned-average-80-time/
On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz stated that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against President Trump’s immigration order is “not a solid decision.” And “looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality.”
Dershowitz said, “Look, this is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.”
He added, “I think this court opinion will not ultimately be sustained by the Supreme Court. Take, for example, the argument that it’s an establishment of religion, because it favors Christians or other religious minorities. In 1944 we passed the War Refugee Act, which specifically was designed to rescue a hundred thousand Jews, and everybody knew the purpose was to rescue jews. That didn’t establish Judaism as the state religion of the United States. I think the establishment argument will fail in the Supreme Court. I think the standing arguments may fail in the Supreme Court.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...sed-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/
Dershowitz said, “Look, this is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws.”
He added, “I think this court opinion will not ultimately be sustained by the Supreme Court. Take, for example, the argument that it’s an establishment of religion, because it favors Christians or other religious minorities. In 1944 we passed the War Refugee Act, which specifically was designed to rescue a hundred thousand Jews, and everybody knew the purpose was to rescue jews. That didn’t establish Judaism as the state religion of the United States. I think the establishment argument will fail in the Supreme Court. I think the standing arguments may fail in the Supreme Court.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...sed-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/
This was a hearing of an appeal of the temporary restraining order. It wasn't a hearing on the full merits of the EO. That will happen at the hearing for the permanent injunction. When the EO was announced, I opined here that portions of it were unlawful/unconstitutional and portions of it may very well be legal/constitutional. Listening to the oral arguments, it appears the administration is still defending the entirety of the order. IMO, they would be well served to jettison arguing the validity of applying it to resident aliens and visa holders that have already been vetted. They would have been even better served by simply slow rolling everyone in the queue that didn't already have a visa while they did their "review".
It appears to me that the administration wanted a big showy win to show how much they are bigly winning. Might have let someone's ego screw the pooch at this point because I don't see them getting everything in that EO by the courts and I don't see them tactically conceding any part of it because that would make it not so much a win.
It appears to me that the administration wanted a big showy win to show how much they are bigly winning. Might have let someone's ego screw the pooch at this point because I don't see them getting everything in that EO by the courts and I don't see them tactically conceding any part of it because that would make it not so much a win.
I thought MSNBC was "fake news". WTF is a reliable, honest, objective site like Breitbart doing citing fake news?
Last edited:
I see you are coming to grips with the new Republican administration. Kudos to you for such pragmatic and realistic expectations.
So it's only fake news when it disagrees with you....or Breitbart.
Roger that.
I'm just concerned for Breitbart. They stand to lose credibility citining fake news like MSNBC.
Breitbart sourced M...S....N....B....C.
Fake news.
Just having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a paragon of journalistic integrity like Breitbart news accumulating from fake news sites.
Kinda says it all.
Rolled out stupidly? Yes. But this decision will be overturned.
