Obama Seditious Undermining of Trump Administration Continues....

[easyt65]

Barack Obama is now free to do whatever he goddam pleases, Easy, including having an opinion on this abortion of a travel ban. The 43 page decision provided by Justice Watson did NOT get written overnight. He's been thinking about this issue since the Pres said he was going to write 2.0.

And the fevered imaginations of the Right are sure that every unsuccessful thing Trump does is Obama's fault.

It wasn't overnight. It was 48 hours
But Hawaii sued them last week... So you make a good point.

Obama didn't tell him to do it, is my point. This has been anticipated since the first one. You get that's what I mean, right?

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

 

[Rambunctious]

Democrat Party====

 

[Rambunctious]

Democrats saw such a massive defeat in several states that would take a generation to repair the losses.
Read more at You don’t understand how bad Obama was for Democrats until you see...

 

[Rambunctious]

Arkansas: The home of Bill Clinton had the greatest change of any state nationwide. Democrats lost all seven statewide elected executive positions, both Senators, 100 percent of their House seats, and the majorities in the state legislature. It was so bad locally for Democrats that they lost 66 percent of the state senators and 65 percent in the house
Read more at You don’t understand how bad Obama was for Democrats until you see...

 

[WheelieAddict]

The response was warranted. Deep state Obama all powerful bla bla. Get off the alex jones/breitbart and into the real world.

Your response shows how little you have on your side...
You don’t understand how bad Obama was for Democrats until you see...

Obama isn't president and has zero power to do anything. Stop the whining.

 

[Rambunctious]

Obama isn't president and has zero power to do anything. Stop the whining.

That is my point he is not president but his actions are still hurting the democrat party....Got to love it!

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Barack Obama is now free to do whatever he goddam pleases

Obama should have written "A friend of the court" brief to try to influence the judge over "dinner and drinks".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama is still fucking with you guys

You just can't get over it

Yep.

Makes the OP's avatar even more ridiculous.

 

[Rambunctious]

Florida: When Alex Sink left the Comptroller’s office for an ill-fated run for governor, she abandoned the Democrats last statewide executive office. Obama’s party has absolutely no bench in the Sunshine State.
Read more at You don’t understand how bad Obama was for Democrats until you see...

 

[Rambunctious]

Yep.

Makes the OP's avatar even more ridiculous

Really?

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The response was warranted. Deep state Obama all powerful bla bla. Get off the alex jones/breitbart and into the real world.

Your response shows how little you have on your side...
You don’t understand how bad Obama was for Democrats until you see...

Obama isn't president and has zero power to do anything. Stop the whining.

You're right but don't tell the weak minded RWNJ Pootarians.

 

[rightwinger]

Impeachment proceedings for judge Watson being explored as we speak. I guess this is not his first purely political decision. Last year he was threatened with impeachment and he was forced to back away from his ruling. He's not a judge he is a political operative.

Trump is more likely a target of impeachment

 

[rightwinger]

It wasn't overnight. It was 48 hours
But Hawaii sued them last week... So you make a good point.

Obama didn't tell him to do it, is my point. This has been anticipated since the first one. You get that's what I mean, right?

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

But Hawaii sued them last week... So you make a good point.

I disagree. If the judge made his decision by reading the paper and watching TV before hearing arguments means he is nothing more than an activist.

Can't anybody else see the wrongness in this? In my opinion making a ruling in this manner firmly places the judicial system on a slippery slope.

I thought judges were supposed to be impartial are base a decision on evidence and testimony.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama didn't tell him to do it, is my point. This has been anticipated since the first one. You get that's what I mean, right?

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

Cracks me up that every time the ignorant disagree with a legal ruling, the use this same incorrect and very lame accusation.

RWNJs don't know, understand, respect or value the US Constitution. Proof of that is even though they listened to drumpf say he wants to gut it, they voted for him. And now, they post here that they agree with him.

 

[jc456]

Obama didn't tell him to do it, is my point. This has been anticipated since the first one. You get that's what I mean, right?

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

again, there was no constitutional issue in the EO. The judge stated so. He just didn't like what trump said as a candidate and inferred something that wasn't in the EO. How does that work in a normal courtroom? Since when do we get to put people in jail cause they made a statement.

 

[easyt65]

Obama didn't tell him to do it, is my point. This has been anticipated since the first one. You get that's what I mean, right?

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

No, snowflake. It is not.

 

[jc456]

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

Cracks me up that every time the ignorant disagree with a legal ruling, the use this same incorrect and very lame accusation.

RWNJs don't know, understand, respect or value the US Constitution. Proof of that is even though they listened to drumpf say he wants to gut it, they voted for him. And now, they post here that they agree with him.

it isn't a legal ruling, you should actually read the ruling. It was an inference to something that wasn't present on the EO. huh?

 

[easyt65]

Then I think you are wrong. If the state never sued trump, he wouldn't have to rule on it. Which makes him out to sound like even more of a hack.

If no one ever disagreed with a President or a new law, there would be no need for the Supreme Court. What point are you making here?

I don't think federal judges just block shit they don't like. Their state must sue first.
If he was coming up with reasons to block it before the state sued like you said, that would make him a huge hack. Big league.

Legislating from the bench, anyone?

It is called upholding the Constitution

Cracks me up that every time the ignorant disagree with a legal ruling, the use this same incorrect and very lame accusation.

RWNJs don't know, understand, respect or value the US Constitution. Proof of that is even though they listened to drumpf say he wants to gut it, they voted for him. And now, they post here that they agree with him.

Obama spent 8 years violating both Constitution and Law but claim the GOP does not understand the Constitution / Law...