Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump

[Lesh]

Only idiots believe that's what the law says.

Can I ask where you got your law degree from?

Because that's what Judges who actually HAVE them have ruled

 

[bripat9643]

.,l..

So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Honduras just changed leadership--and unfortunately we the (US) has caused a lot of problems down there in the past---so yes they will be heard in a court of law. Syrian refugees will also be allowed to enter this country once they're thoroughly vetted.

Trump cannot stop that.

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

 

[bripat9643]

Only idiots believe that's what the law says.

Can I ask where you got your law degree from?

Because that's what Judges who actually HAVE them have ruled

Really? Perhaps you could cite one of them.

 

[Lesh]

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

The fact that you disagree with a law...doesn't make it any less of a law

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

The fact that you disagree with a law...doesn't make it any less of a law

Show me this law that says everyone in the world has a right to an asylum hearing in an American court.

 

[oreo]

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Honduras just changed leadership--and unfortunately we the (US) has caused a lot of problems down there in the past---so yes they will be heard in a court of law. Syrian refugees will also be allowed to enter this country once they're thoroughly vetted.

Trump cannot stop that.

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

I don't give a rats ass what you think--under the LAW we accept refugees, people who are in danger in their home countries. That's the way this country was founded upon, and you may not like it, but it's going to happen.

You can't shut the door behind you, just because you're here and don't want anymore--

 

[OKTexas]

.,l..

"Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn't have "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press."

With all respect to Roberts, who does he think he's kidding?

So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

 

[bripat9643]

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:
So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Honduras just changed leadership--and unfortunately we the (US) has caused a lot of problems down there in the past---so yes they will be heard in a court of law. Syrian refugees will also be allowed to enter this country once they're thoroughly vetted.

Trump cannot stop that.

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

I don't give a rats ass what you think--under the LAW we accept refugees, people who are in danger in their home countries. That's the way this country was founded upon, and you may not like it, but it's going to happen.

I realize you don't care what the law actually says. That's what makes you a snowflake.

We accept them at our discretion. There's nothing about our founding that says otherwise.

 

[Lesh]

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

Hey stupid...Do you know what thread you're spewing your stupidity on?

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar late Monday sided with opponents of Trump’s policy prohibiting certain immigrants from claiming asylum, granting their request for a temporary restraining order.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote in his 37-page ruling.

And Roberts backed him up

 

[bripat9643]

.,l..

So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

Yes, and they can get in line behind thousands of other "asylum" seekers.

 

[Lesh]

We accept them at our discretion.

And according to the applicable laws...which you pretend not to understand

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that you disagree with some American foreign policy doesn't mean that foreigners are entitled to them to a hearing in our court system, dumbass.

Vetted or not, Syrians have no legal right to come to this country.

Hey stupid...Do you know what thread you're spewing your stupidity on?

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar late Monday sided with opponents of Trump’s policy prohibiting certain immigrants from claiming asylum, granting their request for a temporary restraining order.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote in his 37-page ruling.

And Roberts backed him up

Yes, I'm well aware of what the leftwing Obama-appointed douchebag judge said.

 

[bripat9643]

We accept them at our discretion.

And according to the applicable laws...which you pretend not to understand

CIte one for us. You idiots keep claiming that's what the law says, but none of you will quote the law that says it.

 

[oreo]

.,l..

So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

True they can apply for Asylum at any embassy at any foreign country. They will have to prove that they are in danger in their home country to get Asylum. You know like one of Sean Hannity's hero's Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has done--to avoid extradition back to the US for prosecution. He's been holed up in the Ecuador Embassy in London for 6 or 7 years now. They have given him Asylum in their embassy.

 

[bripat9643]

.,l..

So you think judges are incapable of ruling without partisanship?

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

 

[OKTexas]

LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.

.

You mean like John Roberts--(a G.W. Bush appointee) that was the deciding vote on Obamacare-- There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if you think you got a couple of Anthony Scalia's in Justice Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh--you're barking up the wrong tree.

Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both came out of the gate as GW's nominee's to Federal District court of Appeals in 2006. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate. While Democrats turned down a lot of G.W.'s nominees, these two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

All of the above voted for confirmation of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland from an up or down vote. The only reason Republicans blocked Garland was so they could campaign on the next Supreme Court justice--(because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked)--

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings, that Roe v Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

So don't be surprised--and it's because they have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a political party.

So you try to rebut my point by agreeing with it, good job. BTW there have been more than 600 precedents overturned.

.

 

[oreo]

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

In this instance of Hondurans seeking Asylum in this country they will have a hearing--to prove that they are in danger in their own country.

 

[oreo]

LMAO the SCOTUS routinely overturns the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals decisions proving Trump correct. The judiciary may not like hearing they are corrupt and biased, too bad we elected Trump to set them straight.

This is the misconception you right wingers all have. It's because you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS to believe it.

Judges, all judges, regardless of which side of the isle appoints them are dutifuly sworn to abide by the U.S Constitution. PERIOD

They are Apolitical, meaning not political, nor will it ever cross their minds, that since R or D appointed me, that's where my decision will go.

You don't have enough fingers and toes on the number of times that a Justice has gone against the party or President that has appointed them.

And like politicians, many judges could give a shit about the oath they took. If judges used the same standards, split decisions would be the exception and not the rule. Also you wouldn't be able to predict how a judge would vote. Rarely are there any surprise votes coming out of the supremes, they're totally predictable.

.

You mean like John Roberts--(a G.W. Bush appointee) that was the deciding vote on Obamacare-- There are always surprises coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if you think you got a couple of Anthony Scalia's in Justice Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh--you're barking up the wrong tree.

Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both came out of the gate as GW's nominee's to Federal District court of Appeals in 2006. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate. While Democrats turned down a lot of G.W.'s nominees, these two came through that gauntlet with flying colors.

All of the above voted for confirmation of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland from an up or down vote. The only reason Republicans blocked Garland was so they could campaign on the next Supreme Court justice--(because you never know who Hillary Clinton would have picked)--

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee in my memory that stated during confirmation hearings, that Roe v Wade is precedent in the constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

So don't be surprised--and it's because they have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a political party.

So you try to rebut my point by agreeing with it, good job. BTW there have been more than 600 precedents overturned.

.

LINK?

 

[Lesh]

CIte one for us. You idiots keep claiming that's what the law says, but none of you will quote the law that says it.

Ya know what? I'm tired of your loudmouth stupidity. Call John Roberts up and he'll be glad to explain it to your ignorant ass

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing.

That's OK. I don't think you have a functioning cerebral cortex

 

[OKTexas]

The stupid judge in SF violated the latest SCOTUS ruling on travel limitations, so partisanship is the only explanation.

.

So you got nothing to rebut what I said?

Contrast this, to what the SF Judge said:

It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187 (finding it “perfectly clear” that the President could “establish a naval blockade” to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the “sweeping proclamation power” in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

So you got anything other than your giggles?????????????


.

The difference is refugees or immigrants. If they're claiming they're refugees and seeking
Asylum in this country they have to be heard out in a court of law, and the Ass Clown has no authority over that.

According to that dumbass theory, any of 2 billion people from any location on the globe could request asylum and the courts would have to give them a hearing. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that.

As usual, the snowflake understanding of your laws is defective.

Actually they can get a hearing, at whatever embassy they apply in. We won't fly their ass here to await a hearing in this country.

.

They can file an application. I don't think they are entitled to a hearing. Embassies don't do hearings. They don't have any judges.

Hmmm, you're right. They have to be at a port of entry or in the US to apply for asylum.

Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

.