What did Harvard Law Professor Say About Likely Outcome of Trump's Travel Ban?

[bendog]

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal law professor, but an honest one. He says the Trump travel ban will likely be upheld at the SC. I have not heard any of the judges contest the legality of this travel ban, but rather so-called harm to the states that fied lawsuits.. We are no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of selective enforcement of our laws. Does this bode well for our country?

Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Win Travel Ban Case At Supreme Court

why do you lie about your own link?

The case will go to the Supreme Court," the professor emeritus said. "It may split 4-4 — and that will be interesting, because we also have a case in Massachusetts where you have a liberal judge who went in favor of the Trump administration, even though generally he's regarded as quite liberal in his views."

"So, I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States," Dershowitz concluded."

Trump would have won in the 9th if his EO only applied to people who were not, and never had been, in the US. The opinion invited the WH to rewrite the thing. They might still have a problem with people who want to come in and who previously got visas too, btw

 

[Care4all]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

 

[Care4all]

Instead of fighting for the original E/O, the Trump team has decided to give it a second shot with a NEW E/O... leaving out the contentious parts.

 

[toomuchtime_]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

You must be listening to NPR. There is no exception for Christians but the order did say Christians from Syria should be given priority in processing because they are being slaughtered by ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

That's not unconstitutional.

 

[Norman]

You are overestimating the far leftist judicial activists considerably. They can't read... unless it's a text that completely confirm their ideological positions. The article above is not appropriate for anyone, consider at least adding a trigger warning!

 

[Care4all]

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

You must be listening to NPR. There is no exception for Christians but the order did say Christians from Syria should be given priority in processing because they are being slaughtered by ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria.

yes, there are exceptions for the Christians being persecuted in Syria

 

[toomuchtime_]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

lo What part of the Constitution addresses a temporary delay in returning to the US?

 

[bendog]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

Dershowitz said that the EO should be fine so long as it only applied to people who had never been on US soil. He also said that since the Admin had changed it's tune from the EO's original language, and now seemed to accept that limitation, he thought the 9th was pretty much fact picking win it's opinion.

And the 9th order said pretty much said that if the Admin had limited it to people who hadn't been here already it'd have been ok. I seems the 9th chose no to take the Admin's word about how it would apply the EO

 

[jc456]

Yes, and all such actions are subject to court review...

Really?

Because the executive power is vested in the judiciary?

Take a civics class, shittingbull.

All presidential actions are subject to judicial review if someone has standing to challenge it.

except in a national security situation like this. It wasn't legal what the courts did. sorry. But again, Trump can just make a new EO. and we'll get it up since he has the authority to do so. Why do we go to the congress for war and not the courts then?

there has yet to be a reason submitted by either court for the stand. None. And so far no lawyer has been able to explain how they can overrule the president who has intelligence Agencies briefing him. It is just libturds being libturds at the court level. politics isn't to be in national security. so fk them

Yes, Adolf Trump can create a NEW EO - since the first one was declared illegal.

and he will

 

[bendog]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

lo What part of the Constitution addresses a temporary delay in returning to the US?

the 14th amendment. Once you're here, the gummit can't do anything to you w/o applying laws equally to you as it does to everyone else who is here, or has been here and had a right to return when the went on holiday

 

[jc456]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

 

[jc456]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

lo What part of the Constitution addresses a temporary delay in returning to the US?

the 14th amendment. Once you're here, the gummit can't do anything to you w/o applying laws equally to you as it does to everyone else who is here, or has been here and had a right to return when the went on holiday

but the issue isn't here, it's getting here from another country. D'OH

 

[toomuchtime_]

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

You must be listening to NPR. There is no exception for Christians but the order did say Christians from Syria should be given priority in processing because they are being slaughtered by ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria.

yes, there are exceptions for the Christians being persecuted in Syria

No, there aren't. The petition fraudulently claimed the order was a Muslim ban, despite the fact that Muslims from over forty Muslim majority nations are not effected by it. The law gives the President full authority to determine who should and who should not be allowed to enter the country with one exception, no one can be denied entry on the basis of religion or ethnicity, and to support their fraudulent claim that this is a Muslim ban, those who sued bizarrely claim that giving special consideration in processing to the most vulnerable somehow constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

 

[jc456]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

Feel free to point where the law defers to anyones judgment other than the president.View attachment 111714

Show me in the law where anyone else in given a say, where does it say what a judge may deem to be appropriate?

"Detrimental " is part of that . Trump doesn't have a reason that fits . It's not like we just declared war on those countries .

The con says you can't discriminate based on religion /race . If that's what he's doing, his ban in unconstitutional.

Bullshit on religion. 80% of the world's muslims are not on that list. Even Christians from Syria are under the temporary ban.

Yes, even the Christians escaping Syria are under this ban. And you think that this is OK?????

no, I think THERE WAS an exception for Christians escaping
brutality in the E/O??? At least that is what I believe I heard on the news....?

again, there was precedence for that. As I noted in my Tucker link. go listen.

 

[OKTexas]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

That wasn't the intent and was fixed in less than 24 hrs.

 

[jc456]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

nothing unconstitutional at all. they weren't on american soil. D'oh

 

[jc456]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

There are no unconstitutional parts of the order. These judges clearly went rogue, overstepping their authority and ignoring the law in order to make a political statement.

YES, there are.... Dershowitz even stated such...

no he didn't. He merely commented on execution of the order.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The E/O has parts that are constitutional and parts that are not constitutional, and was poorly thought out and poorly executed which caused complete chaos.

With the presidents new Judicial team....they will rewrite the E/O leaving the unconstitutional parts out of it.

What parts were unconstitutional?

banning people with green cards, trying to return to their homes in America....was one...

lo What part of the Constitution addresses a temporary delay in returning to the US?

the 14th amendment. Once you're here, the gummit can't do anything to you w/o applying laws equally to you as it does to everyone else who is here, or has been here and had a right to return when the went on holiday

That applied to only a small group of green card holders who had already arrived in the US but not to those who somewhere else, about 120 people. The administration immediately amended the order to allow these people in. By the time the Seattle judge issued his stay this problem had already been dealt with and constituted no basis for a stay.

 

[Care4all]

One thing stood out in the court arguments . When asked if the ban was not reviewable he said "yes".

Seriously ? So Trump is the be all end all? Since when is there no checks n balances ?

In this case, he is.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I like it how now these losers think the EO is not a good tool to be used by a president, when for eight years it's all we got.

every contentious E/O by Obama was brought to court by Republicans....the last one from a Texas group suing, Obama lost, because when it got to the SC it was a 4/4 decision so it fell back down to the lower court's decision, which was against Obama.