Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOLUnder the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.
(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
Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.
Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?
Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?
Refugees go through more thorough vetting than any immigration population. Denying entry to refugees is a violation of the geneva convention. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
I'm sure you can site the specific worded Geneva code that forces a nation to accept displaced refugees in your response? I'm willing to bet you're talking out of your ass.
. You sure can ban a religion if the religion is incompatible with your country, it's ideology, values, standards etc. Otherwise if attacked by people, and those people claim they are doing so because their religion tells them to attack you, then you sure can ban the religion that motivates people to become terrorist, and then attack you, and then kill you.
. You sure can ban a religion if the religion is incompatible with your country, it's ideology, values, standards etc. Otherwise if attacked by people, and those people claim they are doing so because their religion tells them to attack you, then you sure can ban the religion that motivates people to become terrorist, and then attack you, and then kill you.God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOLUnder the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.
(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
Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.
Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?
Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?
what is a "judicial judge"?
it is a judge. idiota.
you miss the point.... you cannot ban a religion. you can pretend it's about location, but your orange sociopath repeatedly said he wanted a preference for christians.
oops.
uh, what?
9th Circus Court is overturned 80% of the time by SCOTUS; Trump will likely go for it.U.S. appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban
SCOTUS is the likely final word, and I can't imagine they'll get the 5-3 margin they need to overturn the 9th circuit.
This is such a clear case of the President doing what the Constitution and the legal code give him express authority to do, and the judiciary system has ZERO jurisdiction of foreign affairs by the constitution.
The 9th Circus Court needs to be broken up and plowed under and salt sewn across the rubble.
You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?
Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.
Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.
Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?
The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.
I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.
9th Circus Court is overturned 80% of the time by SCOTUS; Trump will likely go for it.
This is such a clear case of the President doing what the Constitution and the legal code give him express authority to do, and the judiciary system has ZERO jurisdiction of foreign affairs by the constitution.
The 9th Circus Court needs to be broken up and plowed under and salt sewn across the rubble.
You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?
Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.
Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.
Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?
The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.
I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.
Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000
Now how many of these Muslim populated nations listed among the top 6 are actually found in the ban you claim proves religious discrimination? Do we actually know what religious discrimination is GaryDog? It's hard to actually prove "discrimination" when there are a vast majority of muslims still free to come into the United States. Now what else can I help clarify for you?
. You sure can ban a religion if the religion is incompatible with your country, it's ideology, values, standards etc. Otherwise if attacked by people, and those people claim they are doing so because their religion tells them to attack you, then you sure can ban the religion that motivates people to become terrorist, and then attack you, and then kill you.God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOL
Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?
Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?
what is a "judicial judge"?
it is a judge. idiota.
you miss the point.... you cannot ban a religion. you can pretend it's about location, but your orange sociopath repeatedly said he wanted a preference for christians.
oops.
uh, what?
I'll shorten it for you. He basically said America is for white christians only.
it can be found if you read it. you will also find it discussed in the decision.. You sure can ban a religion if the religion is incompatible with your country, it's ideology, values, standards etc. Otherwise if attacked by people, and those people claim they are doing so because their religion tells them to attack you, then you sure can ban the religion that motivates people to become terrorist, and then attack you, and then kill you.Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?
Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?
what is a "judicial judge"?
it is a judge. idiota.
you miss the point.... you cannot ban a religion. you can pretend it's about location, but your orange sociopath repeatedly said he wanted a preference for christians.
oops.
uh, what?
I'll shorten it for you. He basically said America is for white christians only.
Now where is that found written in the executive order?
You would think the Supreme Court would get tired of seeing yet another case come down from this court. When you see three judges who, in their 21 page document decision, can't even site a single piece of legislation to back their interpretation of the case ... it speaks volumes to their judicial integrity and ability. Who could take their judicial role seriously with that kind of record?
Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.
Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.
Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?
The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.
I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.
Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000
Now how many of these Muslim populated nations listed among the top 6 are actually found in the ban you claim proves religious discrimination? Do we actually know what religious discrimination is GaryDog? It's hard to actually prove "discrimination" when there are a vast majority of muslims still free to come into the United States. Now what else can I help clarify for you?
It's religious discrimination when you ban refugees from 7 countries, but then HAND PRIORITY FOR CONSIDERATION TO "RELIGIOUS MINORITIES" IN THOSE COUNTRIES, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
You have the ability to clarify nothing. You can trip over your dick about anything, however.
Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.
Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.
Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?
The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.
I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.
Would it be impolite to point out that the doctrine of discrimination in effect does not really take into account the denominator? In other words, if the effect of an order is to discriminate, it doesn't matter how many countries in the world were not included. This order can be done in a day and done in a manner that is not unconstitutionally vague or impact due process.
Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000
Now how many of these Muslim populated nations listed among the top 6 are actually found in the ban you claim proves religious discrimination? Do we actually know what religious discrimination is GaryDog? It's hard to actually prove "discrimination" when there are a vast majority of muslims still free to come into the United States. Now what else can I help clarify for you?
It's religious discrimination when you ban refugees from 7 countries, but then HAND PRIORITY FOR CONSIDERATION TO "RELIGIOUS MINORITIES" IN THOSE COUNTRIES, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
You have the ability to clarify nothing. You can trip over your dick about anything, however.
Gary you really have no clue as to what religious discrimination is. What are the top six Muslim nations in the world? I just listed them. How many of those listed are on the ban? Does that actually mean President Trump wants to ban ALL muslims from entering in the United States? If he were to ban all Muslim nations then you would have a case for religious discrimination, instead we hear .... "Oh it's a hardship to our state, our students, and our revenue. These are just facts Gary, I can't help it if you feel the need to throw a tantrum because you can't present any opposing argumentative facts on the issue.
Uh, the Supreme Court is almost GUARANTEED to affirm the 9th circuit. Blame the shitty executive order by your incompetent president.
Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.
Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?
The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.
I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.
Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000
Now how many of these Muslim populated nations listed among the top 6 are actually found in the ban you claim proves religious discrimination? Do we actually know what religious discrimination is GaryDog? It's hard to actually prove "discrimination" when there are a vast majority of muslims still free to come into the United States. Now what else can I help clarify for you?
It's religious discrimination when you ban refugees from 7 countries, but then HAND PRIORITY FOR CONSIDERATION TO "RELIGIOUS MINORITIES" IN THOSE COUNTRIES, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
You have the ability to clarify nothing. You can trip over your dick about anything, however.
Gary you really have no clue as to what religious discrimination is. What are the top six Muslim nations in the world? I just listed them. How many of those listed are on the ban? Does that actually mean President Trump wants to ban ALL muslims from entering in the United States? If he were to ban all Muslim nations then you would have a case for religious discrimination, instead we hear .... "Oh it's a hardship to our state, our students, and our revenue. These are just facts Gary, I can't help it if you feel the need to throw a tantrum because you can't present any opposing argumentative facts on the issue.
Statutes don't overrule the U.S. Constitution. Quite the opposite, actually.So, in other words, the Constitution does not grant that power to the president whatsoever, and Chief Justice Taney was correct in Ex Parte Merryman that the president may not do so unilaterally.You never answered how the president is granted authority to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally from Article 1 of the Constitution which grants powers to the Congress and not the executive.Why is this court reviewing, and then ruling on something that is legal, and right to do under the Constitution ?? It appears that the left once again is trying to rule this nation by proxy, and in this case it used the 9th circuit to cause troubles for Americans. Might be getting near to Trump calling for Marshall Law in this country, because it appears that there are those here who are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation, and that is unexceptable to most Americans on what is going on now.
"Might be getting near to Trump calling for Marshall Law in this country, because it appears that there are those here who are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation"
What you said, I just pointed this out myself before in this thread and I cited the exact part of the US Constitution where President Trump can put America under Martial Law.
Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Also Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."
Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution it declares that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress.
Only if you ignore 8 US code 1182 (f)
As long as we are talking about aliens who do not hold a valid US Visa, you are correct. Trump can change immigration requirements anyway he wants. He can stop immigration from any country. And he could probably ban any one of a given faith, however that would be almost unenforceable.None of the previous Presidents campaigned on a platform of banning Muslim immigration.
I hate to school your ignorant ass on fucking history but YES previous presidents have campaigned on much worse and ENACTED what they campaigned on! From about 1924 to 1938, we had virtually ZERO immigration from Asians. Simply because the nation was tired of Asian immigrants!
Andrew Jackson campaigned in 1829 to remove Indians entirely from east of the Mississippi. FDR stopped ALL immigration into the US for the entirety of WWII and interned Japanese-Americans after confiscating their property. From about 1950 to the 1970s, there was a ban on any immigration from the Soviet Union. We still have a ban on travel here from Cuba.
There is absolutely nothing in our immigration laws that prohibit us from limiting ANYONE. Especially radical Muslims intent on killing us! Why are you lobbying for these people to be brought into our country?
I swear... Trump might find it easier to just repatriate liberals to Syria!
Aliens do not have any due process rights under the law as written and the Constitution which gives all diplomacy rights to the PResident.The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment.
There is no Constitutional right for foreigners to enter the USA with or without visas as Carter demonstrated.Statutes don't overrule the U.S. Constitution. Quite the opposite, actually.
The ban was not based on religion, you fucking retard.LMAO, you're very very stupid. He doesn't need to ban "all" Muslims for the ban to violate the constitution on the basis of religious discrimination, you clown.
bye bye. lol. snowflake melts. has no inkling about the eo or the decision. but feels wronged. lolThe ban was not based on religion, you fucking retard.LMAO, you're very very stupid. He doesn't need to ban "all" Muslims for the ban to violate the constitution on the basis of religious discrimination, you clown.
Welcome to my ignore list.
No, you are projecting, once again, just like you retards always do.bye bye. lol. snowflake melts. has no inkling about the eo or the decision. but feels wronged. lol
boo hoo. you haven't earned my compassion after pissing away any residual compassion i have for every human being.No, you are projecting, once again, just like you retards always do.bye bye. lol. snowflake melts. has no inkling about the eo or the decision. but feels wronged. lol
I have had two heart attacks, and reading the bullshit from Dimmocrat trolls is not something I am going to do any more.
You would be on it but you occasionally have things worth reading.
But I really dont care much at all about what you try to think about any of what I do, ass hat.
When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.
It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.
There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.
The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.
However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.
You don't understand. Holders of a US Visa have been granted the right to enter the US. If that person is denied entry, they are entitled to due process, that is a hearing to plead their case. The same is true if they have been admitted to the US and committed a deportable offense.no ..... no it did not bubba. otherwise bombing a foreign country would mean they could sue us for the bombing. is that what you'd like?The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.
It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.
There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.
The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.
However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.
