Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

[Kondor3]

So, what's the deal now?

Justice Kennedy is reported to be considering retirement?

Goodbye swing-voter, hello solid Conservative voter.

That'll make it a solid 5-4 court.

And, of course, Ginsburg isn't likely to last much longer.

That'll make it a solid 6-3 court.

Shaping the Supreme Court of the United States for a generation or more.

"Elections have consequences." - President Barack Hussein Obama, January 23, 2009, to GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

"Shall not be infringed"

If you have a problem with those words, then any law can be infringed, including the liberals' favorites like citizenship for anchor babies.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The "conservative" arguments here are just the same old cliche's.You think you are brilliant, jesus h johnson.A collection of internet cranks, as if I'd "debate" a guy called "Ray from Cleveland:>That's just laughable.

Then don't debate me newbie. It would be a wise choice on your part.

So you think you're the first phony to come on USMB acting like a know-it-all? Trust me, there are many more here just like you, mostly on the left of course.

You need to speak to more people on the right to make such a statement. There are phoneys on both sides Ray, and to pretend it isn't so, is to be a phoney.

So what part of the word "mostly" don't you understand.?

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The "conservative" arguments here are just the same old cliche's.You think you are brilliant, jesus h johnson.A collection of internet cranks, as if I'd "debate" a guy called "Ray from Cleveland:>That's just laughable.

Then don't debate me newbie. It would be a wise choice on your part.

So you think you're the first phony to come on USMB acting like a know-it-all? Trust me, there are many more here just like you, mostly on the left of course.

You need to speak to more people on the right to make such a statement. There are phoneys on both sides Ray, and to pretend it isn't so, is to be a phoney.

So what part of the word "mostly" don't you understand.?

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

But that's because, again, you read what people on the left have written. Perhaps the way they come across is different, those on the right claim to be superior in intelligence, those on the right just pretend they know it all and don't need to prove it. Do you know how many posters on here, who are on the right and opposed to my views, actually have the ability to even understand why anyone would back up their claims? No matter how much you ask the vast majority of them, they won't do it. They'll just resort to insults. And I have no doubt it happens on the right too.

But here's the deal, you've made the claim that most are on the left. Okay then, provide the evidence. Unless of course you want to be another one of those know it alls who won't even back themselves up because "it's so clear that I'm right so I don't have to blah blah"

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Shall not be infringed"

If you have a problem with those words, then any law can be infringed, including the liberals' favorites like citizenship for anchor babies.

Okay, do you think that a criminal shall not have their RKBAs infringed when in prison? Do you think that an insane person shall not have their RKBAs infringed? Do you think a five year old should not have the RKBAs infringed? Do you think that foreign terrorists should not have their RKBAs infringed? Do you think that police should not be able to disarm people who are a threat to others, including the police?

 

[dannyboys]

So, what's the deal now?

Justice Kennedy is reported to be considering retirement?

Goodbye swing-voter, hello solid Conservative voter.

That'll make it a solid 5-4 court.

And, of course, Ginsburg isn't likely to last much longer.

That'll make it a solid 6-3 court.

Shaping the Supreme Court of the United States for a generation or more.

"Elections have consequences." - President Barack Hussein Obama, January 23, 2009, to GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor

For possibly four decades.
Life is good.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then don't debate me newbie. It would be a wise choice on your part.

So you think you're the first phony to come on USMB acting like a know-it-all? Trust me, there are many more here just like you, mostly on the left of course.

You need to speak to more people on the right to make such a statement. There are phoneys on both sides Ray, and to pretend it isn't so, is to be a phoney.

So what part of the word "mostly" don't you understand.?

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

But that's because, again, you read what people on the left have written. Perhaps the way they come across is different, those on the right claim to be superior in intelligence, those on the right just pretend they know it all and don't need to prove it. Do you know how many posters on here, who are on the right and opposed to my views, actually have the ability to even understand why anyone would back up their claims? No matter how much you ask the vast majority of them, they won't do it. They'll just resort to insults. And I have no doubt it happens on the right too.

But here's the deal, you've made the claim that most are on the left. Okay then, provide the evidence. Unless of course you want to be another one of those know it alls who won't even back themselves up because "it's so clear that I'm right so I don't have to blah blah"

So what you're expecting me to do is comb through hundreds of posts on USMB, quote each post, write down the post number and topic, to provide proof to you? Yeah, on a beautiful global warming day, that's what I want to spend hours on.

I read what people on the left AND THE RIGHT have to say when I'm participating in a topic. You act like you're new to politics or something. Accusing the right of being stupid and uneducated has been the theme of Democrats for at least 40 years now, and it carries into forums like this one because Democrats are sheep that are told what to think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You need to speak to more people on the right to make such a statement. There are phoneys on both sides Ray, and to pretend it isn't so, is to be a phoney.

So what part of the word "mostly" don't you understand.?

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

But that's because, again, you read what people on the left have written. Perhaps the way they come across is different, those on the right claim to be superior in intelligence, those on the right just pretend they know it all and don't need to prove it. Do you know how many posters on here, who are on the right and opposed to my views, actually have the ability to even understand why anyone would back up their claims? No matter how much you ask the vast majority of them, they won't do it. They'll just resort to insults. And I have no doubt it happens on the right too.

But here's the deal, you've made the claim that most are on the left. Okay then, provide the evidence. Unless of course you want to be another one of those know it alls who won't even back themselves up because "it's so clear that I'm right so I don't have to blah blah"

So what you're expecting me to do is comb through hundreds of posts on USMB, quote each post, write down the post number and topic, to provide proof to you? Yeah, on a beautiful global warming day, that's what I want to spend hours on.

I read what people on the left AND THE RIGHT have to say when I'm participating in a topic. You act like you're new to politics or something. Accusing the right of being stupid and uneducated has been the theme of Democrats for at least 40 years now, and it carries into forums like this one because Democrats are sheep that are told what to think.

No, what I expect you to do is to not make claims you can't back up. So when you know you aren't going to wade through hundreds of posts and make an analysis if what happens on this board, don't make bullshit statements as if you have actually done that analysis.

You read what people say on the left and the right, but how much do you read from both. Equal amounts? Do you keep track of who you're talking to and make a detailed analysis of their political orientation? No, you don't. This is just your perception from someone on the right. Which doesn't mean much here, because it's not a proper scientific experiment.

 

[OldLady]

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what part of the word "mostly" don't you understand.?

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

But that's because, again, you read what people on the left have written. Perhaps the way they come across is different, those on the right claim to be superior in intelligence, those on the right just pretend they know it all and don't need to prove it. Do you know how many posters on here, who are on the right and opposed to my views, actually have the ability to even understand why anyone would back up their claims? No matter how much you ask the vast majority of them, they won't do it. They'll just resort to insults. And I have no doubt it happens on the right too.

But here's the deal, you've made the claim that most are on the left. Okay then, provide the evidence. Unless of course you want to be another one of those know it alls who won't even back themselves up because "it's so clear that I'm right so I don't have to blah blah"

So what you're expecting me to do is comb through hundreds of posts on USMB, quote each post, write down the post number and topic, to provide proof to you? Yeah, on a beautiful global warming day, that's what I want to spend hours on.

I read what people on the left AND THE RIGHT have to say when I'm participating in a topic. You act like you're new to politics or something. Accusing the right of being stupid and uneducated has been the theme of Democrats for at least 40 years now, and it carries into forums like this one because Democrats are sheep that are told what to think.

No, what I expect you to do is to not make claims you can't back up. So when you know you aren't going to wade through hundreds of posts and make an analysis if what happens on this board, don't make bullshit statements as if you have actually done that analysis.

You read what people say on the left and the right, but how much do you read from both. Equal amounts? Do you keep track of who you're talking to and make a detailed analysis of their political orientation? No, you don't. This is just your perception from someone on the right. Which doesn't mean much here, because it's not a proper scientific experiment.

Yes, I do read all posts from the left and from the right. How do you read blogs, just the right ones?

I don't have to do studies to back up my claims; how ridiculous. It's what's called an observation. And maybe the reason people don't provide you with the proof you ask is because it's as ridiculous as the proof you asked of me. You know you're asking for something people don't have or the time to provide. It's a typical leftist tactic you people use.

 

[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.

 

[Mac1958]

The regressives brought this on themselves.

Thanks loads, folks.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I understood the "mostly" part fully, and I disagree with you on the "mostly" part. I see far more fuckheads on the right than the left. Why? Because I talk mostly with those on the right. You talk mostly with those on the left, so you're mostly going to see fuckheads on the left. That doesn't mean that there are more fuckheads on the left.

It does't matter who you talk with, it matters how much of the thread you read.

I read guys like this all the time; people who claim to be so superior to everybody else because of their vast knowledge, experience, or supposed education and yes, MOST of them are on the left.

But that's because, again, you read what people on the left have written. Perhaps the way they come across is different, those on the right claim to be superior in intelligence, those on the right just pretend they know it all and don't need to prove it. Do you know how many posters on here, who are on the right and opposed to my views, actually have the ability to even understand why anyone would back up their claims? No matter how much you ask the vast majority of them, they won't do it. They'll just resort to insults. And I have no doubt it happens on the right too.

But here's the deal, you've made the claim that most are on the left. Okay then, provide the evidence. Unless of course you want to be another one of those know it alls who won't even back themselves up because "it's so clear that I'm right so I don't have to blah blah"

So what you're expecting me to do is comb through hundreds of posts on USMB, quote each post, write down the post number and topic, to provide proof to you? Yeah, on a beautiful global warming day, that's what I want to spend hours on.

I read what people on the left AND THE RIGHT have to say when I'm participating in a topic. You act like you're new to politics or something. Accusing the right of being stupid and uneducated has been the theme of Democrats for at least 40 years now, and it carries into forums like this one because Democrats are sheep that are told what to think.

No, what I expect you to do is to not make claims you can't back up. So when you know you aren't going to wade through hundreds of posts and make an analysis if what happens on this board, don't make bullshit statements as if you have actually done that analysis.

You read what people say on the left and the right, but how much do you read from both. Equal amounts? Do you keep track of who you're talking to and make a detailed analysis of their political orientation? No, you don't. This is just your perception from someone on the right. Which doesn't mean much here, because it's not a proper scientific experiment.

Yes, I do read all posts from the left and from the right. How do you read blogs, just the right ones?

I don't have to do studies to back up my claims; how ridiculous. It's what's called an observation. And maybe the reason people don't provide you with the proof you ask is because it's as ridiculous as the proof you asked of me. You know you're asking for something people don't have or the time to provide. It's a typical leftist tactic you people use.

Yes, you come on here whinging and moaning about people on the left. 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.

So, here's the deal. Your argument sucks balls. You can't back it up, so I'm just going to ignore it as complete nonsense, because that is what it is.

 

[bripat9643]

"Shall not be infringed"

If you have a problem with those words, then any law can be infringed, including the liberals' favorites like citizenship for anchor babies.

There actually is no such law. How about the law that says abortion is a right? Infringing on that would really make them go ballistic.

 

[bripat9643]

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

 

[skews13]

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

It's a double edged sword. With the judiciary being one branch of government. A judiciary that will be out of step with a changing demographic of younger, browner, more liberal population, will change the legislative and executive branches to counter a more conservative court. Since the Constitution gives the legislative powers to the legislative branch, that conservative court would be forced to interpret the laws that are passed the way they are written. If not, the legislative branch can then amend those laws to make sure that happens. And an executive branch that will be issuing more executive orders, now that Trump has set that precedent, will also be a check on a more conservative court. And lets not forget. Mitch McConnell went nuclear with Gorsuch, so the stage has been set in the future for a more liberal millennial population to completely pack the courts with far left liberals to completely reshape the country on everything from abortion to gun laws.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[xband]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

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.

Eid al-Fitr was yesterday and the end of Ramadan month of fasting when most radical Islamic terrorists attack. Happy Eid al-Fitr.

 

[OldLady]

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

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.