Plan C - Trump Immigration/Travel Ban

[protectionist]

There is no pretense that Judge Robart (or is it "Robot" ?) and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court acted on moral or legal grounds. Their actions were pure anti-Trump politics, and dangerous to national security.

This is called blatant hardball. OK. If that's how they want to go, let's go there too. Bring in the Syrian refugees,and put them in tent cities immediately adjacent to the judges' homes. Set them up without basic sanitation, and with loudspeakers to broadcast their calls to prayer, 5 times every day. With tent cities on both sides of the judges' homes, they can her the Arabic wailing in surround-sound stereo, extra LOUD.

Maybe they'll also hear the screaming of Muslim wives being whipped by their husbands (in accordance with Koran 4:34), and Muslim thieves having the hands cut off (if not their heads).

It might be funny to watch the Muslims' livestock (goats & sheep) eating up the judges' prize flower gardens, and urinating in their swimming pools. How's that for a 6 O'Clock News presentation ?

Maybe the judges will invite some of the Muslim refugee men over for a cup of tea (along with their 9 year old wives). Should be interesting. The Muslim kiddee wives ought to have some colorful stuff to tell the American kids of their own age. Maybe "our" illustrious judges could video tape some of those conversations for the 6 O'Clock News too.

And if the judges have any idea about ruling the tent cities illegal, this time, the Trump EO could be enforced with federalized Army National Guard troops, who can watch over the refugees (and terrorists among them), and see to it that the the camps remain right where they are.

Let the judges pay for their outlaw rulings - PERSONALLY.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I always guffaw heartily when I her the phrase "we are a nation of laws".

 

[BULLDOG]

Even Trump's S.C. nominee, Gorsuch, said Trumps remarks about judges were wrong. Since the presidency doesn't give him the power he thought it would, Trump ill be dealing with the courts a lot, and pissing off every judge in the country isn't a very smart thing to do. Just pointing out another example of how he is lost as a goose and in way over his head.

 

[protectionist]

I always guffaw heartily when I her the phrase "we are a nation of laws".

Certainly not after "Judge Robart" and the 9th Circuit outlaws did their dirty work.

 

[protectionist]

Even Trump's S.C. nominee, Gorsuch, said Trumps remarks about judges were wrong. Since the presidency doesn't give him the power he thought it would, Trump ill be dealing with the courts a lot, and pissing off every judge in the country isn't a very smart thing to do. Just pointing out another example of how he is lost as a goose and in way over his head.

Sounds like YOU are lost one around here. Since when is it improper to criticize judges ? (or anybody else)

EARTH TO BULLDOG: NOBODY is above criticism (and certainly not the outlaws > Robarts, and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals court)

And Trump didn't piss off "every" judge in the country. In fact, some made rulings upholding his immigration/travel ban.

As for Gorsuch, he is wrong to suggest that people shouldn't criticize judges. If he doesn't watch out, he could be easily replaced. Trump had more than a dozen candidates for the position - all well qualified.

 

[BULLDOG]

Even Trump's S.C. nominee, Gorsuch, said Trumps remarks about judges were wrong. Since the presidency doesn't give him the power he thought it would, Trump ill be dealing with the courts a lot, and pissing off every judge in the country isn't a very smart thing to do. Just pointing out another example of how he is lost as a goose and in way over his head.

Sounds like YOU are lost one around here. Since when is it improper to criticize judges ? (or anybody else)

EARTH TO BULLDOG: NOBODY is above criticism (and certainly not the outlaws > Robarts, and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals court)

And Trump didn't piss off "every" judge in the country. In fact, some made rulings upholding his immigration/travel ban.

As for Gorsuch, he is wrong to suggest that people shouldn't criticize judges. If he doesn't watch out, he could be easily replaced. Trump had more than a dozen candidates for the position - all well qualified.

Neither Gorsuch nor I ever said judges shouldn't be criticized. Only that it should be rational criticism based in facts. Not just made up shit like Trump's childish accusation that they ruled against him because they just don't like him. They had legal grounds for the ruling they made. Trump had childish insults and nothing else.

 

[protectionist]

Even Trump's S.C. nominee, Gorsuch, said Trumps remarks about judges were wrong. Since the presidency doesn't give him the power he thought it would, Trump ill be dealing with the courts a lot, and pissing off every judge in the country isn't a very smart thing to do. Just pointing out another example of how he is lost as a goose and in way over his head.

Sounds like YOU are lost one around here. Since when is it improper to criticize judges ? (or anybody else)

EARTH TO BULLDOG: NOBODY is above criticism (and certainly not the outlaws > Robarts, and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals court)

And Trump didn't piss off "every" judge in the country. In fact, some made rulings upholding his immigration/travel ban.

As for Gorsuch, he is wrong to suggest that people shouldn't criticize judges. If he doesn't watch out, he could be easily replaced. Trump had more than a dozen candidates for the position - all well qualified.

Neither Gorsuch nor I ever said judges shouldn't be criticized. Only that it should be rational criticism based in facts. Not just made up shit like Trump's childish accusation that they ruled against him because they just don't like him. They had legal grounds for the ruling they made. Trump had childish insults and nothing else.

That is exactly what he said. He said nothing about 'facts" YOU said that. No the judges most cetainly did NOT have legal grounds to make their judgements (and I gag at even referring to then as that)

They didn't even mention the LAW * that gives the POTUS the right to do what he did, and does not gives those judges ant right whatsoever to cancel it.

* 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

1. U.S. Code
2. › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
3. 
   
4. Scroll to Part 3 >>

1. 
   
   (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;

 

[bendog]

There is no pretense that Judge Robart (or is it "Robot" ?) and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court acted on moral or legal grounds. Their actions were pure anti-Trump politics, and dangerous to national security.

This is called blatant hardball. OK. If that's how they want to go, let's go there too. Bring in the Syrian refugees,and put them in tent cities immediately adjacent to the judges' homes. Set them up without basic sanitation, and with loudspeakers to broadcast their calls to prayer, 5 times every day. With tent cities on both sides of the judges' homes, they can her the Arabic wailing in surround-sound stereo, extra LOUD.

Maybe they'll also hear the screaming of Muslim wives being whipped by their husbands (in accordance with Koran 4:34), and Muslim thieves having the hands cut off (if not their heads).

It might be funny to watch the Muslims' livestock (goats & sheep) eating up the judges' prize flower gardens, and urinating in their swimming pools. How's that for a 6 O'Clock News presentation ?

Maybe the judges will invite some of the Muslim refugee men over for a cup of tea (along with their 9 year old wives). Should be interesting. The Muslim kiddee wives ought to have some colorful stuff to tell the American kids of their own age. Maybe "our" illustrious judges could video tape some of those conversations for the 6 O'Clock News too.

And if the judges have any idea about ruling the tent cities illegal, this time, the Trump EO could be enforced with federalized Army National Guard troops, who can watch over the refugees (and terrorists among them), and see to it that the the camps remain right where they are.

Let the judges pay for their outlaw rulings - PERSONALLY.

I actually agree with the OP. I think Trump should do something that the GOP would have no choice but to impeach him over, thus paying back all of us who didn't vote for Hillary because we didn't think we could stand 4 years of that crap

 

[BULLDOG]

Even Trump's S.C. nominee, Gorsuch, said Trumps remarks about judges were wrong. Since the presidency doesn't give him the power he thought it would, Trump ill be dealing with the courts a lot, and pissing off every judge in the country isn't a very smart thing to do. Just pointing out another example of how he is lost as a goose and in way over his head.

Sounds like YOU are lost one around here. Since when is it improper to criticize judges ? (or anybody else)

EARTH TO BULLDOG: NOBODY is above criticism (and certainly not the outlaws > Robarts, and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals court)

And Trump didn't piss off "every" judge in the country. In fact, some made rulings upholding his immigration/travel ban.

As for Gorsuch, he is wrong to suggest that people shouldn't criticize judges. If he doesn't watch out, he could be easily replaced. Trump had more than a dozen candidates for the position - all well qualified.

Neither Gorsuch nor I ever said judges shouldn't be criticized. Only that it should be rational criticism based in facts. Not just made up shit like Trump's childish accusation that they ruled against him because they just don't like him. They had legal grounds for the ruling they made. Trump had childish insults and nothing else.

That is exactly what he said. He said nothing about 'facts" YOU said that. No the judges most cetainly did NOT have legal grounds to make their judgements (and I gag at even referring to then as that)

They didn't even mention the LAW * that gives the POTUS the right to do what he did, and does not gives those judges ant right whatsoever to cancel it.

* 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

1. U.S. Code
2. › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
3. 
   
4. Scroll to Part 3 >>

1. 
   
   (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;

If you say so.

 

[protectionist]

I actually agree with the OP. I think Trump should do something that the GOP would have no choice but to impeach him over, thus paying back all of us who didn't vote for Hillary because we didn't think we could stand 4 years of that crap

One big problem with that. Those Republicans would than be going against the majority of Republican voters who voted for Trump (both in the primaries & GE),and would be risking defeat in the next election's primary.

 

[protectionist]

If you say so.

I say so.

 

[waltky]

Judge Robart declines to ban the ban...

Trump travel ban: Judge declines to reinstate ruling
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - The ruling comes from the same judge who blocked Donald Trump's first attempt at a ban.

A US judge has declined to issue an emergency order banning President Donald Trump's revised travel ban. The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states.

A protest in New York against the ban. The state is one of several to launch legal challenges​

Lawyers in Washington state had asked Judge Robart to extend his decision on the first ban to cover the second. But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so. He said a complaint or a motion would have to be filed before he could rule. The justice department had argued that since the initial travel order ban had been revoked, the judge's first ruling could no longer apply. Those opposing that argument said the new travel ban had the same effect as the original.

In succeeding with the first ban, they argued the move was unconstitutional and damaging to businesses in Washington state. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Thursday that the administration believed the new order would withstand legal scrutiny. Several states have launched legal challenges.

Which states have launched challenges and why?

 

[protectionist]

A protest in New York against the ban. The state is one of several to launch legal challenges​

Wouldn't it be cool if the friends and relatives of the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11 in New York went to this protest and kicked the living shit out of these morons protesting ? They ought to. (including many cops and firemen.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no pretense that Judge Robart (or is it "Robot" ?) and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court acted on moral or legal grounds. Their actions were pure anti-Trump politics, and dangerous to national security.

This is called blatant hardball. OK. If that's how they want to go, let's go there too. Bring in the Syrian refugees,and put them in tent cities immediately adjacent to the judges' homes. Set them up without basic sanitation, and with loudspeakers to broadcast their calls to prayer, 5 times every day. With tent cities on both sides of the judges' homes, they can her the Arabic wailing in surround-sound stereo, extra LOUD.

Maybe they'll also hear the screaming of Muslim wives being whipped by their husbands (in accordance with Koran 4:34), and Muslim thieves having the hands cut off (if not their heads).

It might be funny to watch the Muslims' livestock (goats & sheep) eating up the judges' prize flower gardens, and urinating in their swimming pools. How's that for a 6 O'Clock News presentation ?

Maybe the judges will invite some of the Muslim refugee men over for a cup of tea (along with their 9 year old wives). Should be interesting. The Muslim kiddee wives ought to have some colorful stuff to tell the American kids of their own age. Maybe "our" illustrious judges could video tape some of those conversations for the 6 O'Clock News too.

And if the judges have any idea about ruling the tent cities illegal, this time, the Trump EO could be enforced with federalized Army National Guard troops, who can watch over the refugees (and terrorists among them), and see to it that the the camps remain right where they are.

Let the judges pay for their outlaw rulings - PERSONALLY.

And if being president gave Trumpo the power to do that, I'm sure he would. It's what any tin pot third world dictator would do. Right in line with Trumpo's dumb ego.

 

[protectionist]

There is no pretense that Judge Robart (or is it "Robot" ?) and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court acted on moral or legal grounds. Their actions were pure anti-Trump politics, and dangerous to national security.

This is called blatant hardball. OK. If that's how they want to go, let's go there too. Bring in the Syrian refugees,and put them in tent cities immediately adjacent to the judges' homes. Set them up without basic sanitation, and with loudspeakers to broadcast their calls to prayer, 5 times every day. With tent cities on both sides of the judges' homes, they can her the Arabic wailing in surround-sound stereo, extra LOUD.

Maybe they'll also hear the screaming of Muslim wives being whipped by their husbands (in accordance with Koran 4:34), and Muslim thieves having the hands cut off (if not their heads).

It might be funny to watch the Muslims' livestock (goats & sheep) eating up the judges' prize flower gardens, and urinating in their swimming pools. How's that for a 6 O'Clock News presentation ?

Maybe the judges will invite some of the Muslim refugee men over for a cup of tea (along with their 9 year old wives). Should be interesting. The Muslim kiddee wives ought to have some colorful stuff to tell the American kids of their own age. Maybe "our" illustrious judges could video tape some of those conversations for the 6 O'Clock News too.

And if the judges have any idea about ruling the tent cities illegal, this time, the Trump EO could be enforced with federalized Army National Guard troops, who can watch over the refugees (and terrorists among them), and see to it that the the camps remain right where they are.

Let the judges pay for their outlaw rulings - PERSONALLY.

And if being president gave Trumpo the power to do that, I'm sure he would. It's what any tin pot third world dictator would do. Right in line with Trumpo's dumb ego.

Too bad you don't have any SUBSTANCE to contribute. Oh well.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no pretense that Judge Robart (or is it "Robot" ?) and the 3 stooges of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court acted on moral or legal grounds. Their actions were pure anti-Trump politics, and dangerous to national security.

This is called blatant hardball. OK. If that's how they want to go, let's go there too. Bring in the Syrian refugees,and put them in tent cities immediately adjacent to the judges' homes. Set them up without basic sanitation, and with loudspeakers to broadcast their calls to prayer, 5 times every day. With tent cities on both sides of the judges' homes, they can her the Arabic wailing in surround-sound stereo, extra LOUD.

Maybe they'll also hear the screaming of Muslim wives being whipped by their husbands (in accordance with Koran 4:34), and Muslim thieves having the hands cut off (if not their heads).

It might be funny to watch the Muslims' livestock (goats & sheep) eating up the judges' prize flower gardens, and urinating in their swimming pools. How's that for a 6 O'Clock News presentation ?

Maybe the judges will invite some of the Muslim refugee men over for a cup of tea (along with their 9 year old wives). Should be interesting. The Muslim kiddee wives ought to have some colorful stuff to tell the American kids of their own age. Maybe "our" illustrious judges could video tape some of those conversations for the 6 O'Clock News too.

And if the judges have any idea about ruling the tent cities illegal, this time, the Trump EO could be enforced with federalized Army National Guard troops, who can watch over the refugees (and terrorists among them), and see to it that the the camps remain right where they are.

Let the judges pay for their outlaw rulings - PERSONALLY.

And if being president gave Trumpo the power to do that, I'm sure he would. It's what any tin pot third world dictator would do. Right in line with Trumpo's dumb ego.

Too bad you don't have any SUBSTANCE to contribute. Oh well.

You're spouting about a RWNJ wet dream that can't and won't ever happen, and then want to whine to me about SUBSTANCE?

 

[protectionist]

You're spouting about a RWNJ wet dream that can't and won't ever happen, and then want to whine to me about SUBSTANCE?

Who says it won't happen ? You ?

Trump will start with the voting ballots, and then expand from there. I'd bet on it.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're spouting about a RWNJ wet dream that can't and won't ever happen, and then want to whine to me about SUBSTANCE?

Who says it won't happen ? You ?

Trump will start with the voting ballots, and then expand from there. I'd bet on it.

I'd bet that is what he would like to do, but he's nuts.

 

[protectionist]

I'd bet that is what he would like to do, but he's nuts.

What makes you say that ? Nuts about WHAT ?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'd bet that is what he would like to do, but he's nuts.

What makes you say that ? Nuts about WHAT ?

There is a long list. If you are unaware of it, there is nothing I can do to help you.