Travel Ban 2.0 DejaVu?

[OldLady]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

So you are happy to see judges ignore the law and issued purely political decisions.

I'm happy to see them standing up for what I believe this country is about. Not fear. Not stinginess. Not hatred.

What they are not standing up for is the rule of law and you are happy about that.

I think I'll let these Federal Judges determine what the rule of law is, rather than you. Seems to be their job.
But YES I already said if it slows down this E.O. from being implemented, I'm glad their opinions got in the way. What is so awful about that, anyway?

 

[TNHarley]

No, activist judges are abusing the Constitution to create their own law on the bench. There is nothing unconstitutional Trump is doing since foreigners are not protected under our Constitution.

Foreigners are people too.

What does that have to do with it?
The 14th applies to people on our soil, correct?

 

[OldLady]

Well, at least he's not a Russian. I'm glad Obama is on my side and I agree with him 100%

LOL, you really blew my mind today.

Same here. You're fussin' like my mother when I wouldn't go to church with her.

Was she fussing because you selfishly ignored laws?

Just stop wagging your finger at me and giving me a lecture because you THINK you know more than me.

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

 

[TNHarley]

LOL, you really blew my mind today.

Same here. You're fussin' like my mother when I wouldn't go to church with her.

Was she fussing because you selfishly ignored laws?

Just stop wagging your finger at me and giving me a lecture because you THINK you know more than me.

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

 

[postman]

How is he discriminating against religion?

By banning everybody from those seven counties, and then allowing exceptions for Catholics Akin to the Jim Crowe laws that kept people from voting unless their grandfather was allowed to vote..

 

[postman]

Why don't people apply "intent" when they are discussing the rest of the COTUS? Weird how that works.

Conservative justice, such as Antonin Scalia relied heavily on the 'intent' of those that wrote the Constitution. Look at the decision he wrote about the DC gun law, where he heavily goes into the 'intent' in order to interpret what the 2nd amendment meant. While ignoring half of what it actually said.

 

[OldLady]

Same here. You're fussin' like my mother when I wouldn't go to church with her.

Was she fussing because you selfishly ignored laws?

Just stop wagging your finger at me and giving me a lecture because you THINK you know more than me.

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

 

[TNHarley]

How is he discriminating against religion?

By banning everybody from those seven counties, and then allowing exceptions for Catholics Akin to the Jim Crowe laws that kept people from voting unless their grandfather was allowed to vote..

link?

 

[TNHarley]

Was she fussing because you selfishly ignored laws?

Just stop wagging your finger at me and giving me a lecture because you THINK you know more than me.

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

But if they aren't against the law, there is a huge difference. You have stated you don't care if what the judge did was an abuse of power or not. HUGE difference.
But yes, the SC is nothing but activists. Has been for a LONG time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus Christ . You righties always talk big that you are pro constitution , but you'd have the giv wipe its ass wh any amendment that's not the 2nd .

What part of the constitution guarantees that people who have declared war on this nation are allowed unfettered access to the country?

You just make shit up.

 

[OldLady]

Just stop wagging your finger at me and giving me a lecture because you THINK you know more than me.

I didn't say that. I just said you are selfishly ignoring the law. And I will remember this
I love consistency.

You plan on addressing my point that this is no different than all the weight being put on Gorsich's appointment to the SC?

I don't know what you mean?

If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

But if they aren't against the law, there is a huge difference. You have stated you don't care if what the judge did was an abuse of power or not. HUGE difference.
But yes, the SC is nothing but activists. Has been for a LONG time.

You've got some pretty strange opinions, too, m'boy. Chillax.

 

[Avatar4321]

How is this order doing that? Please, be specific again.

It targets these 6 majority Muslim countries. The reasons for doing so are dubious and really just pretext for the Dons true motives .

It doesn't matter what the motives are. He as President by law has the authority to do what he did.....twice. The problem is these leftists judges don't believe in our system of laws, so they move against them. This judge should be removed from the bench.

Too bad that pesky constitution stands in his way! He's prez , not king. He just can't do whatever he wants for whatever reason .

Except the constitution and statutory legislation give him the exact authority he exercised to make the order

Except it KEEPS being found to be unconstitutional!!!!!

Because judges are playing politics instead of following the law.

Or do you think national security is a religious purpose?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
If the justices are wrong, it will be reversed. This is not the first justice to bring this question. There was quite a bit of talk about it when the justices on the 9th were questioning the lawyers in the first suit. I watched it.
I think just as the Republicans are panting to get Gorsich into the SC to make laws as HE sees fit, so I can be glad the justices in this case see it as THEY do. There's no difference, TN.

The decision was not based on law, it was based on politics. This piece of shit Watson ruled in accordance to party goals. No thought was given to precedent or constitutional basis.

He should be impeached and disbarred.

 

[postman]

What does that have to do with it?
The 14th applies to people on our soil, correct?

As does the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. Plus the 14th as you mentioned, and the 16th

 

[postman]

What part of the constitution guarantees that people who have declared war on this nation are allowed unfettered access to the country?

You just make shit up.

None of those six countries has declared war on us. Had they done so, the presidents executive and c-in-c powers could prohibit those that wage war against us from entering the country. But in this case, there is no declared war from those countries.

 

[Avatar4321]

Jesus Christ . You righties always talk big that you are pro constitution , but you'd have the giv wipe its ass wh any amendment that's not the 2nd .

Except it doesn't violate any amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


None of those six countries has declared war on us. Had they done so, the presidents executive and c-in-c powers could prohibit those that wage war against us from entering the country. But in this case, there is no declared war from those countries.

Islam has, Comrade Brown Shirt.

Those 6 countries are all terrorist sponsor states, with one of them, Iran, currently pursuing a nuclear weapon (with the collusion of Barack Obama)

 

[postman]

Jesus Christ . You righties always talk big that you are pro constitution , but you'd have the giv wipe its ass wh any amendment that's not the 2nd .

Except it doesn't violate any amendment.

Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination | CRT | Department of Justice

Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

Do you not understand that it is not native-born Americans that go out of their way to kill as many Americans as possible while shouting "Allahu Akbar"?

The brakes need to be put on say: ISIS organizers coming into the US.

If you can't understand that, tough.

 

[postman]

[


None of those six countries has declared war on us. Had they done so, the presidents executive and c-in-c powers could prohibit those that wage war against us from entering the country. But in this case, there is no declared war from those countries.

Islam has, Comrade Brown Shirt.

Islam is not a nation-state. If the Vatican declared war on the United States, would that allow the president to round up every catholic, or refuse entry by any catholic from any country?