Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

Elections have consequences!

I wish the elections had meted out consequences for what the Republicans did to twist the rules. It was dirty.

Twist what rules?

Wow, you libs let your imaginations run crazy!

Why do you have to make shit up in order to make yourselves feel better about your pathetic choices in life?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And in doing so you fit the stereotypical person on the right who comes along, makes a dodgy claim and won't ever back it up. Why? Well, usually because it's wrong.

No, I told you why, you just don't want to admit that I'm correct. Unless somebody has nothing better to do with their time, they are not going to spend half a day to create some sort of study to satisfy you; and you on the left know people won't do it either which is why you make such ridiculous requests. But even if I actually did it, you wouldn't believe it anyhow, so what's the point?

Yes, I don't want to admit you're correct because you're WRONG. So.... you can't prove, you can't even show a single piece of evidence to show that what you think is right, so.....

It's like me saying that there's a planet on the other side of the universe with my face on it. I can't prove it, hell, I don't need to prove because I'M JUST RIGHT.... and then you go off complaining about people on the left who, and I quote,

claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education

Ironic, no? That you're bitching about people acting like they are better than others, but you feel like you're too good to back up your claims because you "know" they're right so you don't have to prove.

Oh, come on Ray, this is pitiful.

As for demanding that people back up the shit that claim being somehow evidence that they think they're superior than others, bullshit. It's COMMON FUCKING PRACTICE for people who want to try and debate properly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Section 212(f), states: "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."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

So much ignorance, and so little time engaged in rational thought!

 

[bripat9643]

Section 212(f), states: "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."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

The people with the ISIS "frame of mind" largely come from the countries on Trump's list. The perpetrators of all the terrorist attacks came from Muslim countries or are the children of people from these countries. Allowing Muslims to immigrate to this country is the original cause of the problem. It needs to stop right now. These people are hostile to our society.

If all the terrorists were "native born," all that means is that importing them now means we'll have a problem once their offspring reach adulthood.

 

[xband]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

The people with the ISIS "frame of mind" largely come from the countries on Trump's list. The perpetrators of all the terrorist attacks came from Muslim countries or are the children of people from these countries. Allow Muslims to immigrate to this country is the original cause of the problem. It needs to stop right now. These people are hostile to our society.

Hire Canadian sharpshooters. Just a few days ago a Canadian sharpshooter shot down a Syrian Mig from a range just over two miles using a shoulder held .50 cal rifle. Bore diameter of the shoulder held rifle is one half of an inch. The Canadian sharpshooter set the new record.

 

[danielpalos]

Civil Asset Forfeiture: Where Due Process Goes to Die

We have a Commerce Clause. There is no provable exigency to cede our sovereign rights, if the right wing believes we can lower taxes and not raise taxes to meet the alleged exigency; in this Case, alleged times of War.

War Time social Powers require, Wartime Tax Rates:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

The people with the ISIS "frame of mind" largely come from the countries on Trump's list. The perpetrators of all the terrorist attacks came from Muslim countries or are the children of people from these countries. Allow Muslims to immigrate to this country is the original cause of the problem. It needs to stop right now. These people are hostile to our society.

Hire Canadian sharpshooters. Just a few days ago a Canadian sharpshooter shot down a Syrian Mig from a range just over two miles using a shoulder held .50 cal rifle. Bore diameter of the shoulder held rifle is one half of an inch. The Canadian sharpshooter set the new record.

I doubt a sharp-shooter can shoot down a Mig.

 

[beagle9]

And in doing so you fit the stereotypical person on the right who comes along, makes a dodgy claim and won't ever back it up. Why? Well, usually because it's wrong.

No, I told you why, you just don't want to admit that I'm correct. Unless somebody has nothing better to do with their time, they are not going to spend half a day to create some sort of study to satisfy you; and you on the left know people won't do it either which is why you make such ridiculous requests. But even if I actually did it, you wouldn't believe it anyhow, so what's the point?

Yes, I don't want to admit you're correct because you're WRONG. So.... you can't prove, you can't even show a single piece of evidence to show that what you think is right, so.....

It's like me saying that there's a planet on the other side of the universe with my face on it. I can't prove it, hell, I don't need to prove because I'M JUST RIGHT.... and then you go off complaining about people on the left who, and I quote,

claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education

Ironic, no? That you're bitching about people acting like they are better than others, but you feel like you're too good to back up your claims because you "know" they're right so you don't have to prove.

Oh, come on Ray, this is pitiful.

As for demanding that people back up the shit that claim being somehow evidence that they think they're superior than others, bullshit. It's COMMON FUCKING PRACTICE for people who want to try and debate properly.

. The word of God is proof enough about anything you want to know, need to know or have to know, but you won't go there in your mind will you ??? You sit here requiring people to chase down links or to prove something to you, but if you had the word of God to judge anyone's assertions with, their speak or opinions by, then you could just sit back and say yes or no about something someone says.... You then could do it without using your tactic in hopes that someone is to lazy or not interested in oppeasing you, where as then you can say, "SEE", he must be a liar folks, because he can't prove his point to me or won't prove it so I win. Game over !! Nope, because people who have the word know better about such things, and they have not the reason to cast their pearls before swine if it is that it would be cast into the air instead of landing upon solid ground.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

The people with the ISIS "frame of mind" largely come from the countries on Trump's list. The perpetrators of all the terrorist attacks came from Muslim countries or are the children of people from these countries. Allow Muslims to immigrate to this country is the original cause of the problem. It needs to stop right now. These people are hostile to our society.

. What, and stop the open agenda to turn America into a majority brown skin country that will someday destroy the supposed white power/white devil in this country once and for all ??

 

[frigidweirdo]

And in doing so you fit the stereotypical person on the right who comes along, makes a dodgy claim and won't ever back it up. Why? Well, usually because it's wrong.

No, I told you why, you just don't want to admit that I'm correct. Unless somebody has nothing better to do with their time, they are not going to spend half a day to create some sort of study to satisfy you; and you on the left know people won't do it either which is why you make such ridiculous requests. But even if I actually did it, you wouldn't believe it anyhow, so what's the point?

Yes, I don't want to admit you're correct because you're WRONG. So.... you can't prove, you can't even show a single piece of evidence to show that what you think is right, so.....

It's like me saying that there's a planet on the other side of the universe with my face on it. I can't prove it, hell, I don't need to prove because I'M JUST RIGHT.... and then you go off complaining about people on the left who, and I quote,

claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education

Ironic, no? That you're bitching about people acting like they are better than others, but you feel like you're too good to back up your claims because you "know" they're right so you don't have to prove.

Oh, come on Ray, this is pitiful.

As for demanding that people back up the shit that claim being somehow evidence that they think they're superior than others, bullshit. It's COMMON FUCKING PRACTICE for people who want to try and debate properly.

. The word of God is proof enough about anything you want to know, need to know or have to know, but you won't go there in your mind will you ??? You sit here requiring people to chase down links or to prove something to you, but if you had the word of God to judge anyone's assertions with, their speak or opinions by, then you could just sit back and say yes or no about something someone says.... You then could do it without using your tactic in hopes that someone is to lazy or not interested in oppeasing you, where as then you can say, "SEE", he must be a liar folks, because he can't prove his point to me or won't prove it so I win. Game over !! Nope, because people who have the word know better about such things, and they have not the reason to cast their pearls before swine if it is that it would be cast into the air instead of landing upon solid ground.

So, this "word of god" stuff. How do you know it's the word of god? Who told you the Bible was the word of god? Humans right? Who wrote the Bible? Humans? And the very same humans call it "believing", not "knowing", but "believing", why do you think that is? It's because they're laughing at you.

 

[boedicca]

One must have a heart of stone to witness the Prog Panic over Trump appointing another SCOTUS justice without laughing hysterically.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, come on Ray, this is pitiful.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Section 212(f), states: "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."

What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

Well that's fine and dandy when you run the country. But right now, Trump is running the country and what he says goes. If he thinks the ban is going to help the US, then that's his decision to make, not some leftist activist court.

 

[OldLady]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

. He should be proud, because appointing leftist judges to a bench is insane.

Well, I'm not entranced with a bunch of right leaning judges unfairly flooding a system that is supposed to take fair turn and turn about.

Frankly, I think anyone who's ever declared themselves a member of either major party should be summarily prohibited from appointment or election as a jurist.

Why? Registering as unaffiliated doesn't make anyone less "opinionated."

 

[OldLady]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

Elections have consequences!

I wish the elections had meted out consequences for what the Republicans did to twist the rules. It was dirty.

Twist what rules?

Wow, you libs let your imaginations run crazy!

Why do you have to make shit up in order to make yourselves feel better about your pathetic choices in life?

I don't know what my life choices have to do with the price of eggs, but refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland and slow-boating over 100 nominations to fill vacancies on the courts in order to stack those vacancies with right leaning justices was dirty politics and an abrogation of your responsibilities. I hope every one of the justices you appoint now will behave as justices should, and leave their personal opinions on the topics of the day at home.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

Elections have consequences!

I wish the elections had meted out consequences for what the Republicans did to twist the rules. It was dirty.

Twist what rules?

Wow, you libs let your imaginations run crazy!

Why do you have to make shit up in order to make yourselves feel better about your pathetic choices in life?

I don't know what my life choices have to do with the price of eggs, but refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland and slow-boating over 100 nominations to fill vacancies on the courts in order to stack those vacancies with right leaning justices was dirty politics and an abrogation of your responsibilities. I hope every one of the justices you appoint now will behave as justices should, and leave their personal opinions on the topics of the day at home.

Your belief that Obama appointed leftwing hacks would "behave as justices should" is utterly comical.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

So much ignorance, and so little time engaged in rational thought!

Yes, and I'm sure you will rationally explain where I'm wrong. (I'm not holding my breath)

 

[OldLady]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Ray, we know. However, it is unconstitutional for our President or our government to ban people due to their religion and the damned fool came out and TOLD everyone he, Donald Trump, would ban all Muslims. When he found out that wouldn't work, he asked Rudi Giuliani how to get around it. And damned fool Rudi told the world that, too.
Whether his prior statements will be allowed into the argument is the crux of the case. If they are, he's sunk.
But think of it this way, a temporary 90 day ban on refugees isn't going to do much to make us safer, anyway. What would have made us safer would have been if his administration had told the IC to "figure out what was going on" as Trump puts it. But they didn't--playing coy. So the people lose, again.

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

Well that's fine and dandy when you run the country. But right now, Trump is running the country and what he says goes. If he thinks the ban is going to help the US, then that's his decision to make, not some leftist activist court.

I honestly don't recall the left slandering and bitching about the courts that ruled against Obama's E.O.'s or policies as being right-wing activists. Law is law. We'll see as far as the travel ban goes, but just because Trump supporters are wholly partisan doesn't mean everyone is. Law is law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

Well that's fine and dandy when you run the country. But right now, Trump is running the country and what he says goes. If he thinks the ban is going to help the US, then that's his decision to make, not some leftist activist court.

I honestly don't recall the left slandering and bitching about the courts that ruled against Obama's E.O.'s or policies as being right-wing activists. Law is law. We'll see as far as the travel ban goes, but just because Trump supporters are wholly partisan doesn't mean everyone is. Law is law.

So what "law" did DumBama enforce in any of his EO's that was struck down by the courts? I'm not talking about laws he and the Democrats created that were unconstitutional, but laws that have been on the books for years?

Section 212f states that a President has the sole authority to stop immigration from any groups of people or countries he deems necessary for any period of time he deems necessary.

 

[skews13]

Sorry....he didn't ban muslims....Alan Dershowitz was on Mike Gallagher's radio show today and he stated that if Trump was banning muslims he would have started with Indonesia...which is not on the list....since Indonesia has the largest muslim population in the world......it is not on the list.....

The countries on the list have terrorism problems...there are 50 muslim countries in the world...travel is banned from 6 of them.....

That means muslims from the other 44 muslim countries can come here regardless of the ban on the other 6...

What is it about that detail you people refuse to understand?

The terrorist attacks in this country have NOT been carried out by refugees from these countries. The majority have been homegrown or here since they were young children. The travel ban wouldn't have protected us at all and it still won't. What we need to do is focus on how radicalization is succeeding here. That and immigrants from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are not on the list. This is a feel good move by the President to assuage idiots. It will not make anyone safer.

"Home grown" means their parents came from one of these countries. The reality is that many people from these countries have been caught planning terrorist attacks, and in Europe many people conducting terrorist attacks came directly from one of these countries.

One day, there will be another major terror attack in this country. I think we can safely assume that. Let's get back to what the E.O. actually says. A 90 day temporary ban (120 days for some) from those countries is not going to do squat. The people who planned those attacks in our country but were caught--were they refugees? Or people here on Visas? Or people here illegally? From where? Do you know? I don't.

ISIS is a frame of mind that won't go away once Raqqa and Mosul are free of them. What to do about changing that frame of mind is a lot more complicated than a 90 day temporary ban from a handful of countries. We did not allow millions of unvetted refugees into our country the way Europe was forced to. Their problems are different from ours. All our refugees are extensively vetted. Passports that are automatically accepted here like Belgium and France open a bigger hole in our security, since many of the European terrorists have also been second generation from those countries.

Enhancing security and vetting procedures is the only answer that will actually make a difference. There is no reason why that could not have already been done except that the administration wouldn't, because they were pouting that they couldn't have their little ban.

The people with the ISIS "frame of mind" largely come from the countries on Trump's list. The perpetrators of all the terrorist attacks came from Muslim countries or are the children of people from these countries. Allow Muslims to immigrate to this country is the original cause of the problem. It needs to stop right now. These people are hostile to our society.

. What, and stop the open agenda to turn America into a majority brown skin country that will someday destroy the supposed white power/white devil in this country once and for all ??

An open agenda? LMAO.

Now there's a statement based in ignorance the defies logic to explain.

There's no agenda that is changing the population demographic. It's called evolution Cletis.

That is going to happen whether you like it or not, or who you elect to office or not.

And it's happening at a very fast pace. How fast?

By 2045, people that look like you will only account for 50% of the population.

Guess who represents the other half?

Of that 50% that will remain that looks like you. How many of them do you think will think like you?

You are not only headed to minority status as a demographic. You are headed to an even smaller minority ideology.

Only an idiot still tries to live like their parents or their grandparents. Who ironically enough worked their asses of so you would move forward and not think like them.

Looks like in your case they failed.

The problem with people that think like you, is you live in a fantasy world where you think you can move far enough away, or vote for a politician, or buy your way to the world you perceive that doesn't exist.

It's the parable of the tortoise and the hare.

Better look over your shoulder there mr. hare, because the tortoise is catching up.

See you at the finish line.