Judicial Branch = Totalitarianism

[protectionist]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

 

[Nosmo King]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

 

[Claudette]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

Nope.

This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

Nope.

This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

You had better read that constitution too.

If you Trumpeteers say you're so dedicated to the constitution, a passing familiarity with it would be helpful.

 

[OldLady]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

Nope.

This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

In the end, he'll probably get his ban. I didn't think the oral arguments last night seemed to be going in the government's favor, though. The stay may be upheld until the underlying case is decided.
I don't agree that anyone should make a blanket statement like "He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution." The court system was deliberately conceived the way it was in order to put a curb on the power of any one man in the POTUS seat. They didn't want another king. The court system is working as it was meant to. Be patient.

 

[Claudette]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

Nope.

This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

In the end, he'll probably get his ban. I didn't think the oral arguments last night seemed to be going in the government's favor, though. The stay may be upheld until the underlying case is decided.
I don't agree that anyone should make a blanket statement like "He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution." The court system was deliberately conceived the way it was in order to put a curb on the power of any one man in the POTUS seat. They didn't want another king. The court system is working as it was meant to. Be patient.

Oh I agree with you much of what you posted.

The 9th will probably not approve the appeal because, its well, the 9th. If it goes to the SC he will get the temporary ban he wants.

Oh and I have boundless patience.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

Nope.

This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

Problem with that statement is, is that it gives blanket permission for everything. You can make a case for almost anything to be in the interest of national security, it just how broad you want to define it. Someone way smarter then me talk about this.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
The end result of your arguments amounts to a dictatorship.

 

[protectionist]

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

You obviously understand that I understand very well, hence the ire you pretend to spew. Of course the judicial branch is SUPPOSED TO serve as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. Problem is (as in the 3 other cases I cited (in California and Arizona), the judges rule by political activism, not by law (and you know it). I have lots of business lecturing you on this. and I've gone pretty lightly on you .

 

[protectionist]

Nope. This isn't about the law. This about what power the Constitution grants the executive branch. In this case Trump has the power to issue a ban. The same power douchebag and Carter used when they instituted a ban.

He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution.

Clearly you are correct, and not only did Carter do this , so did Obama (with Iraq in 2010 and Cuba, just 3 weeks ago.

 

[protectionist]

You had better read that constitution too.

If you Trumpeteers say you're so dedicated to the constitution, a passing familiarity with it would be helpful.

Maybe you'd like to fill us in on what you see as unconstitutional ? Before you fling a wild guess, be advised that non-citizens living outside the USA, are not protected by the US Constitution. You do know that right ? And you also are aware of US Code 8, Section 1182, Part 3 ? Just wondering if you have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, I'm afraid that what's it's come down to. Dumbass Washington state judge Robarts rules against Trump's ban, not because it is correct law to do so, but only because he doesn't like the politics.

Robarts also said since 2001, no terrorism has come from the 7 countries Trump specified. FALSE! There have been many terrorist events.

This is the liberasl last gasp. Using the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box. Bypaaing democracy and the will of the people (in the executive & legislarive branches) and running to activist kjudges to annul properly made law.

The fiends go judge shopping (as they did in California Propositions187 and 227 and Arizona Proposition 200) and when they find just the just they like they file lawsuits.

Somethings gotta be done about this. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

What gall you have! The judicial branch serves as a check and balance for the other two branches of government. You have no business lecturing about government when you obviously don't understand it.

The judicial branch just rules what they want the Constitution to say and what they want the other branches of government to do. There is no check and balance, they just decree. And there is no consent of the people governed because there is no democracy, no legislative vote of those the people elected, they are just making up law. It's just like the Soviet Politburo. The judges who do that belong against the wall

 

[g5000]

The judges won't do what Dear Leader wants them to do, and that's the retard's idea of "totalitarianism".

No, really. He actually bleevs this. Just read the OP!

 

[nat4900]

Clearly you are correct, and not only did Carter do this , so did Obama (with Iraq in 2010 and Cuba, just 3 weeks ago.

Most people try to hide their fucking stupidity....YOU,like to flaunt it......

Carter issued a ban AFTER Iranians took over our embassy and held prisoner our personnel....

Obama issued a ban on Iraqi (a ban just in issuing new visas) AFTER two immigrants were arrested for planning an attack.

 

[protectionist]

In the end, he'll probably get his ban. I didn't think the oral arguments last night seemed to be going in the government's favor, though. The stay may be upheld until the underlying case is decided.
I don't agree that anyone should make a blanket statement like "He has the power to do anything he has to do to protect this country under the Constitution." The court system was deliberately conceived the way it was in order to put a curb on the power of any one man in the POTUS seat. They didn't want another king. The court system is working as it was meant to. Be patient.

If you read the law that Trump is enforcing, you will see that you are wrong. The courts do NOT have the right to take the president's power away, as in the law he is enforcing.

1. U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182

Scroll to Part 3 >>
(3)Security and related grounds

(A)In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i)
any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii)
any other unlawful activity, or
(iii)
any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B)Terrorist activities
(i)In generalAny alien who—
(I)
has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II)
a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III)
has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV)is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa)
a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb)
a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII)
endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

 

[protectionist]

Most people try to hide their fucking stupidity....YOU,like to flaunt it......

Carter issued a ban AFTER Iranians took over our embassy and held prisoner our personnel....

Obama issued a ban on Iraqi (a ban just in issuing new visas) AFTER two immigrants were arrested for planning an attack.

A ban on issuing new visas of a certain country is a ban on people coming to the US from that country. Not getting enough sleep lately ? And Cuba ? Blanket ban. Lastly try to speak cleanly. Helps to give you the appearance of having some intelligence. As for the Carter ban, that originated from another poster. You can go back to sleep now.

 

[protectionist]

The judges won't do what Dear Leader wants them to do, and that's the retard's idea of "totalitarianism".

No, really. He actually bleevs this. Just read the OP!

It's a matter of what THE LAW wants (requires), not necessaily any person. No charge for the tutoring.

1. U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182

Scroll to Part 3 >>
(3)Security and related grounds

(A)In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i)
any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii)
any other unlawful activity, or
(iii)
any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B)Terrorist activities
(i)In generalAny alien who—
(I)
has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II)
a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III)
has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV)is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa)
a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb)
a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII)
endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The judges won't do what Dear Leader wants them to do, and that's the retard's idea of "totalitarianism".

No, really. He actually bleevs this. Just read the OP!

the system of checks and balances goes both ways....it means the judicial branch can be checked as well.....Trump could just go ahead and enforce the ban while they dither about it for months, meanwhile letting in terrorists and seditionaries......just what are those judicial activists going to do about that?