Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You said that he promised a Muslim ban - did not happen
I know it didn't happen, because of constitutional issues, But Trump promised to enact a muslim ban.
Donald Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order: Court
Court: Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order
Judge Richard R. Clifton wasnāt satisfied with that dodge, saying that if Mr. Trump and his advisers did in fact say they were trying to impose a Muslim ban,
āI understand the argument they shouldnāt be given much weight, but when you say we shouldnāt be looking at newspaper articles ā weāre all on the fast track here,ā Judge Clifton said. āEither those kinds of statements were made, or theyāre not. Now if they were made not to be a serious policy principle, I can understand that. But if they were made, it is potential evidence, it is the basis for an argument.ā
Mr. Trump spent months during the campaign parsing what, exactly, he meant when he announced in December 2015 that he wanted āa total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesā until the government could get a handle on things.
Gorsuch had 99% of his decisions upheld, so your whine is pointless.Oh really ...Gorsuch was the only one of seven judges to rule against the Trucker... I guess the mob of Judges was wrong on the LawThe snowflakes have made it clear they don't care what the law actually says. They think a judge is supposed to make new law based on whatever the mob is shouting for at the moment.
this case was heard by seven judges. Only one ruled against him, and that judge was the current Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch
You said that he promised a Muslim ban - did not happen
I know it didn't happen, because of constitutional issues, But Trump promised to enact a muslim ban.
Donald Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order: Court
Court: Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order
Judge Richard R. Clifton wasnāt satisfied with that dodge, saying that if Mr. Trump and his advisers did in fact say they were trying to impose a Muslim ban,
āI understand the argument they shouldnāt be given much weight, but when you say we shouldnāt be looking at newspaper articles ā weāre all on the fast track here,ā Judge Clifton said. āEither those kinds of statements were made, or theyāre not. Now if they were made not to be a serious policy principle, I can understand that. But if they were made, it is potential evidence, it is the basis for an argument.ā
Mr. Trump spent months during the campaign parsing what, exactly, he meant when he announced in December 2015 that he wanted āa total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesā until the government could get a handle on things.
Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban--it's on video. Rudi Guiliani got on Fox News after he helped Trump write the executive order and called it a Muslim ban--so the cough cough "travel ban"--went up in smoke immediately.
sounds to me like you are simply changing the subject...the only Judge of Seven who wanted the Truck driver dead was Gorsuch...Gorsuch had 99% of his decisions upheld, so your whine is pointless.
Even if he did, that has no relevance to the Constitutionality of his EO. That's a basic legal principle, but I know morons like you don't care about the law.
It's not a law. It's an EO. The intent is whatever Trump says his intent is when he issued it, not what he said about something that didn't exist when he was on the campaign trail. Intent only comes into play when there is some ambiguity in the text of the law. There is no ambiguity in Trump's EO.Even if he did, that has no relevance to the Constitutionality of his EO. That's a basic legal principle, but I know morons like you don't care about the law.
Classic Antonin Scalia is to interpret the law based on the "original intent" of those that wrote it.
Your best argument at this point is, Trump said Muslim Ban, but he didn't really mean it.
It's not a law. It's an EO. The intent is whatever Trump says his intent is when he issued it, not what he said about something that didn't exist when he was on the campaign trail. Intent only comes into play when there is some ambiguity in the text of the law. There is no ambiguity in Trump's EO.
You don't need to convince me of it, obviously it's Federal District Court Judges that don't believe him--LOL
Trumpās Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
Gorsuch did not want the truck driver dead, you unctuous lying reptile. You may not like the law, but Gorsuch ruled based on what the law said, not what some Dim Senators think the law should say.sounds to me like you are simply changing the subject...the only Judge of Seven who wanted the Truck driver dead was Gorsuch...Gorsuch had 99% of his decisions upheld, so your whine is pointless.
BenghaziWell, promising to restrict travel from terror prone zones does not constitute a Muslim banTrump was mistaken about Obama needing approval
As you were mistaken about Trump promising to repeal gun-free zones.
"I will get rid of gun-free zones in schools and you have to, and on military bases. My first day it gets signed. My first day it gets signed. My first day. Thereās no more gun-free zones. Think of it." [Burlington, VT, 1/7/16]
Yep, he did say that, I was unaware, he also backed off that pledge
There is still this outstanding issue.
Why do you feel compelled to lie?
Do you really not understand this or are you lying?
Seriously, honestly asking....
....why are some of you upset?
Did you really think that YOU would get everything you wanted and nothing you didn't want?
Do you really think that the POTUS can just do whatever he wants to?
Do you understand that negotiations ALWAYS have to be made?
I am a Trump supporter, just to clarify.
I'm happy with President Trump and my decision to vote for him so far. I think he's done a great considering he's dealing with a bunch of idiots on both sides of the aisle in DC. Democrats are a waste of space and some Republicans are no better either.
If that has no legal import, then how can anything he said during the campaign have any legal import?It's not a law. It's an EO. The intent is whatever Trump says his intent is when he issued it, not what he said about something that didn't exist when he was on the campaign trail. Intent only comes into play when there is some ambiguity in the text of the law. There is no ambiguity in Trump's EO.
What he says when he issues it has no legal weight. It's like when a parent spanks a child saying "this hurts me more than it hurts you"
As I said, classic conservative principle is to interpret the law according to the authors "original intent".
BenghaziWell, promising to restrict travel from terror prone zones does not constitute a Muslim banAs you were mistaken about Trump promising to repeal gun-free zones.
"I will get rid of gun-free zones in schools and you have to, and on military bases. My first day it gets signed. My first day it gets signed. My first day. Thereās no more gun-free zones. Think of it." [Burlington, VT, 1/7/16]
Yep, he did say that, I was unaware, he also backed off that pledge
There is still this outstanding issue.
Why do you feel compelled to lie?
Do you really not understand this or are you lying?
Seriously, honestly asking....
Well we can only Thank God that Democrats didn't line up 240 grieving mothers on their platform when 240 U.S. Marines were killed in that embassy in Lebanon and call Ronald Reagan a murderer.
And we know that G.W. Bush had a few Benghazi's of his own.
Gorsuch did not want the truck driver dead, you unctuous lying reptile. You may not like the law, but Gorsuch ruled based on what the law said, not what some Dim Senators think the law should say.sounds to me like you are simply changing the subject...the only Judge of Seven who wanted the Truck driver dead was Gorsuch...Gorsuch had 99% of his decisions upheld, so your whine is pointless.
To be honest, I don't agree with Gorsuch's ruling. No company should be able to order you to place your life in danger. But that's only one ruling out of thousands.
To be honest, I don't agree with Gorsuch's ruling. .
WowDonald Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order: Court
Court: Trumpās āMuslim banā promise is āevidenceā against executive order
Judge Richard R. Clifton wasnāt satisfied with that dodge, saying that if Mr. Trump and his advisers did in fact say they were trying to impose a Muslim ban,
āI understand the argument they shouldnāt be given much weight, but when you say we shouldnāt be looking at newspaper articles ā weāre all on the fast track here,ā Judge Clifton said. āEither those kinds of statements were made, or theyāre not. Now if they were made not to be a serious policy principle, I can understand that. But if they were made, it is potential evidence, it is the basis for an argument.ā
Mr. Trump spent months during the campaign parsing what, exactly, he meant when he announced in December 2015 that he wanted āa total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesā until the government could get a handle on things.Again, you continue to lie
He did not promise to ban Moooslums
Read the judges order. It was based on Trump promising a muslim ban. If Trump never promised a muslim ban, there would have been no orders blocking his executive orders.
Your best argument at this point is, Trump said Muslim Ban, but he didn't really mean it.
You don't need to convince me of it, obviously it's Federal District Court Judges that don't believe him--LOL
Trumpās Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
