It is currently September 22nd, 2017, 3:16 pm

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 8:15 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Here is exactly what the law says--

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
"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."

Its couldn't be more clear. This is a textbook example of judicial tyranny, with a liberal judge completely ignoring the law and substituting his own ideological opinion. Disgraceful.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 9:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
I think the problem lies in the "finds detrimental" bit. Without concrete justification for the limits, it's outside the code.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 1:05 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 1:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.

Case and point.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 1:43 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 2:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.

The current case just set precedent.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 2:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Quote:
The Seattle judge’s order suspending Trump’s immigration ban also explains how the US government works

Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.

The narrow question the court is asked to consider today is whether it is appropriate to enter a TRO [temporary restraining order] against certain actions taken by the Executive in the context of this specific lawsuit. Although the question is narrow, the court is mindful of the considerable impact its order may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the country’s citizens and residents. The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government. Accordingly, the court concludes that entry of the above-described TRO is necessary, and the States’ motion is therefore GRANTED.


The rest of the order, along with the judicial reasoning for said order including applicable case law can be found here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 2:35 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.

The current case just set precedent.


In other words nothing says any of that. That's what I figured.

The law is clear, this judge is just doing what liberals on the court typically do. if they don't like something they just smack it down, they don't care anything about laws, or intent or constitutions, they just tyrannically abuse their power any way they can to get the outcome they want.

No surprise that this headcase judge was also the one who spoke the words "black lives matter" in a case involving a police matter.

Of course if Trump were Obama he would just defy the court like Obama did multiple times.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n2032726.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.

The current case just set precedent.


In other words nothing says any of that. I thought so. The law is clear this judge is just doing what liberals on the court typically do. if they don;t like something they just smack it down, they don;t care anything about laws, or intent or constitutions, they just tyrannically abuse their ppower any way they can to get the poutcome they want.

No surprise that this headcase judge was also one who spoke the words "black lives matter" in a case involving a police department.

Of course if Trump were Obama he would just defy the court like Obama did multiple times.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n2032726.

The judge was appointed by George W. Bush.

And I answered your post in my second response. All the applicable precedent case law is cited.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 6:11 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.

The current case just set precedent.


In other words nothing says any of that. I thought so. The law is clear this judge is just doing what liberals on the court typically do. if they don;t like something they just smack it down, they don;t care anything about laws, or intent or constitutions, they just tyrannically abuse their ppower any way they can to get the poutcome they want.

No surprise that this headcase judge was also one who spoke the words "black lives matter" in a case involving a police department.

Of course if Trump were Obama he would just defy the court like Obama did multiple times.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n2032726.

The judge was appointed by George W. Bush.

And I answered your post in my second response. All the applicable precedent case law is cited.


It doesnt matter bush senior appoiubted Souter, who was one of the most liberal SCOTUS members ever.

None of that had anything to with the law I posted. The judge doesn't care, he is just doing this purely out of idealogy, it has nothing to do with the law.

I don't know how long it will take, but this nonsense will be overturned. Hopefully it will be quickly.

In the meantime Trump or his staffers should take note of everyone coming into the country who would not have been allowed to. because any murders they commit will be morally the fault of this judge.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 6:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Its very clear "whenever the president finds detrimental" means all it takes is for the president to have that opinion.

Um...I think that's why the court told him NO because that's not how it works. He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed.


-"He has to demonstrably JUSTIFY his actions and if he can't, his executive orders get turfed."

And what law, or court case precedent says this????

please provide a link.

The current case just set precedent.


In other words nothing says any of that. I thought so. The law is clear this judge is just doing what liberals on the court typically do. if they don;t like something they just smack it down, they don;t care anything about laws, or intent or constitutions, they just tyrannically abuse their ppower any way they can to get the poutcome they want.

No surprise that this headcase judge was also one who spoke the words "black lives matter" in a case involving a police department.

Of course if Trump were Obama he would just defy the court like Obama did multiple times.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n2032726.

The judge was appointed by George W. Bush.

And I answered your post in my second response. All the applicable precedent case law is cited.


It doesnt matter bush senior appoiubted Souter, who was one of the most liberal SCOTUS members ever.

None of that had anything to with the law I posted. The judge doesn't care, he is just doing this purely out of idealogy, it has nothing to do with the law.

I don't know how long it will take, but this nonsense will be overturned. Hopefully it will be quickly.

In the meantime Trump or his staffers should take note of everyone coming into the country who would not have been allowed to. because any murders they commit will be morally the fault of this judge.

Did you read the decision? There's a legal test involved, eh.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 6:22 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
From here

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-tria ... wide-stay/

Quote:
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?

Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.

Here is where the Boston judge and the Seattle judge appeared to disagree. According to reports of what was said at oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge believes rational basis review requires the law-making branches of government “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. As the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent. This is why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out ultimately, and Trump’s will prevail.

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 6:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
What is the source of the above?

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 7:38 pm 

Joined: October 19th, 2012, 4:26 pm
Posts: 1572
There were individuals who committed terrorist attacks against the United States whose nations weren't on Trump's list as well:

Quote:
Tashfeen Malik - born in Pakistan & lived much of her life in Saudi Arabia. She was one of the San Bernardino shooters who murdered 14 people with her American born husband, Syed Rizwan Farook.

Image

Faisal Shahzad - born in Pakistan who made a pipe bomb which he attempted to explode in New York's Time Square in 2010.

Image

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - born in Kyrgyzstan, who was one of the bombers which left 3 dead and hundreds injured at the Boston Marathon in 2013.

Image



So, while the media may be somewhat correct that terror attacks haven't come from the nations mentioned, they have from others. And they tend to sugarcoat that fact.

Romero wrote:
Image


Top
Unread postPosted: February 4th, 2017, 7:48 pm 

Joined: October 19th, 2012, 4:26 pm
Posts: 1572
Even if Trump wins as you suggest, he won't get everything he wants.

One thing which weakens his case is that he put a ban on Muslims who'd already been approved for entry. If they were already vetted, cleared for entry, then they should be able to enter. Fair is fair. Some of them saved the lives of American soldiers in the middle east.

Yeah Right wrote:
From here

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-tria ... wide-stay/

Quote:
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?

Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.

Here is where the Boston judge and the Seattle judge appeared to disagree. According to reports of what was said at oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge believes rational basis review requires the law-making branches of government “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. As the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent. This is why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out ultimately, and Trump’s will prevail.

Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 11:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 6:31 pm
Posts: 4301
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit

Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of his racist and sexist attitudes, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American president.

In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was "strongly opposed" to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was "not an automatic right" but "an earned honour".

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Mr Bercow told MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."

Nearly two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump's state visit to be cancelled in just days after it was announced. MPs are to debate the issue in Westminster Hall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-speaker-address-parliament-a7565651.html


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 12:24 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Romero wrote:
Quote:
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit

Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of his racist and sexist attitudes, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American president.

In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was "strongly opposed" to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was "not an automatic right" but "an earned honour".

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Mr Bercow told MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."

Nearly two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump's state visit to be cancelled in just days after it was announced. MPs are to debate the issue in Westminster Hall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-speaker-address-parliament-a7565651.html


Whether it's here, or England, or anywhere else, its the same deal--Just an other example of the left silencing dissent by any means necessary. typical.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 12:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22249
Yeah Right wrote:
Romero wrote:
Quote:
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit

Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of his racist and sexist attitudes, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American president.

In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was "strongly opposed" to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was "not an automatic right" but "an earned honour".

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Mr Bercow told MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."

Nearly two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump's state visit to be cancelled in just days after it was announced. MPs are to debate the issue in Westminster Hall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-speaker-address-parliament-a7565651.html


Whether it's here, or England, or anywhere else, its the same deal--Just an other example of the left silencing dissent by any means necessary. typical.

I think we have the right to say no to fascist pigs coming into our countries to spread their ignorance and hatred. Keep that shit in your own country thanks.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 6th, 2017, 1:03 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
Romero wrote:
Quote:
Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit

Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of his racist and sexist attitudes, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American president.

In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was "strongly opposed" to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was "not an automatic right" but "an earned honour".

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Mr Bercow told MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall."

Nearly two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump's state visit to be cancelled in just days after it was announced. MPs are to debate the issue in Westminster Hall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-speaker-address-parliament-a7565651.html


Whether it's here, or England, or anywhere else, its the same deal--Just an other example of the left silencing dissent by any means necessary. typical.

I think we have the right to say no to fascist pigs coming into our countries to spread their ignorance and hatred. Keep that shit in your own country thanks.


Calling trump a fascist and pig says more about you and your post than it does about him. Why are you so angry and filled with hate?


Top
Unread postPosted: February 7th, 2017, 11:41 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
NPR is worried

What If 'Something Happens' After Judge's Ruling On Trump's Travel Ban?
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/07/513870631 ... travel-ban

They should be worried, if someone this judge brought in kills someone it will be this judge's fault.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On | Load: 14.26 ]