White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[reconmark]

Post#266
boss of no one....

Yet, you all seem to get some sort of rise out of being able to strut around and crow because some obscure left-wing judge perverted the Constitution to make a political statement. So you get a few days of being able to run around waving the Constitution like you're all James Fucking Madison... only to end up losing yet another battle.

Seems like more Judges have decided to follow the law and Constitution rather than get on the "sniff trumps ass" tour (like you), so the "fact" of the matter is that real Americans and not the racist nationalist have prevailed,,,,

Well no. A liberal wackadoodle judge in Washington made a stupid unconstitutional ruling and the three liberal clowns on the 9th Circus upheld his ruling. That's all that has happened so far.

It's unclear if it will go to SCOTUS at this point or if Trump will simply issue a new EO. That's probably what will happen. But the nation is going to be secured and the travel restrictions will be put in place.

So four judges that decided to follow the Constitution and make trump and fools like you eat dirt are clowns...lol.
Thank God for clowns and not empty headed unconstitutional wind bags like your tump troupe...

 

[danielpalos]

Not right wing son. You're accusations do nothing for your argument.

sure; you have All of the right wing arguments, down pat.

cognitive dissonance in the public domain, and claiming you are not really like that, afterward; in this, same, public domain?

 

[Boss]

So four judges that decided to follow the Constitution and make trump and fools like you eat dirt are clowns...lol.
Thank God for clowns and not empty headed unconstitutional wind bags like your tump troupe...

I don't understand how you think they made anybody "eat dirt" here.

The last 5 presidents restricted travel 43 times using this same statute. Obama did it 19 times. No lawsuits, no protests. Because, it is not unconstitutional.

You'll find out soon enough. Monday or Tuesday, Trump will rescind the EO and issue a new one that does the same thing but addresses the technical glitches in the original.

I can tell you this, if you leftards think this sort of thing is the way you're going to slow the president down the next four years, we really DO have a "constitutional crisis" and the courts are going to need to be slapped down... This is the president who won't be afraid to do it.

 

[reconmark]

So four judges that decided to follow the Constitution and make trump and fools like you eat dirt are clowns...lol.
Thank God for clowns and not empty headed unconstitutional wind bags like your tump troupe...

I don't understand how you think they made anybody "eat dirt" here.

The last 5 presidents restricted travel 43 times using this same statute. Obama did it 19 times. No lawsuits, no protests. Because, it is not unconstitutional.

You'll find out soon enough. Monday or Tuesday, Trump will rescind the EO and issue a new one that does the same thing but addresses the technical glitches in the original.

I can tell you this, if you leftards think this sort of thing is the way you're going to slow the president down the next four years, we really DO have a "constitutional crisis" and the courts are going to need to be slapped down... This is the president who won't be afraid to do it.

So in other words, you lost like a bitch on this legal issue and are hoping that some Judge somewhere will ignore the Constitutional for a political favor from trump...

 

[Boss]

So in other words, you lost like a bitch on this legal issue and are hoping that some Judge somewhere will ignore the Constitutional for a political favor from trump...

Again... real simple to follow if you have a brain...

The EO failed to specify it didn't apply to green card/student/work visa holders who may have happened to be out of the country visiting one of these nations. The State Dept. quickly clarified that it didn't apply to them but it wasn't mentioned in the EO. Because of this technicality, the judge in Washington found cause to order the stay and the 9th upheld it.

That's all.

So, Monday or Tuesday, the President will rescind the original EO and issue a new one with the included disclaimer regarding the exceptions. If someone wants to sue and take that one to court it will win 8-0 in SCOTUS because the president does have the authority to do this.

Now look.... I understand.... you guys have been getting your teeth kicked in for the better part of 18 months by this man even when you thought you had him dead to rights. I realize that must be frustratingly painful to your fragile little egos, especially after strutting around like smart asses the past 8 years. So enjoy!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cecilie1200, post: 16546849

No, he actually doesn't. It's a good idea, and one assumes the citizenry would demand it, but since immigration to this country is NOT a right, the US can technically set its standards to whatever it pleases.

Nope, Trump can't discriminate against one religion as Federal immigration policy. His order said to prioritize Christians in countries were the persecuted population is mostly Muslim.

Trump campaigned as a religious bigot. The court system knows it. He's not campaigning anymore. His idiot base doesn't know the difference. They think they elected a fascist Muslim hating dictator.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16559226

The EO failed to specify it didn't apply to green card/student/work visa holders who may have happened to be out of the country visiting one of these nations. The State Dept. quickly clarified that it didn't apply to them but it wasn't mentioned in the EO. Because of this technicality, the judge in Washington found cause to order the stay and the 9th upheld it.

Trump is a fuckup. We all knew that. What took you so long? If the country really is in danger from improper vetting that is what Trump should have prioritized. Not letting Christians in first after a review. SoTrump fucked up not the courts. His publicity stunt to please all the Muslim haters failed.

 

[danielpalos]

So in other words, you lost like a bitch on this legal issue and are hoping that some Judge somewhere will ignore the Constitutional for a political favor from trump...

Again... real simple to follow if you have a brain...

The EO failed to specify it didn't apply to green card/student/work visa holders who may have happened to be out of the country visiting one of these nations. The State Dept. quickly clarified that it didn't apply to them but it wasn't mentioned in the EO. Because of this technicality, the judge in Washington found cause to order the stay and the 9th upheld it.

That's all.

So, Monday or Tuesday, the President will rescind the original EO and issue a new one with the included disclaimer regarding the exceptions. If someone wants to sue and take that one to court it will win 8-0 in SCOTUS because the president does have the authority to do this.

Now look.... I understand.... you guys have been getting your teeth kicked in for the better part of 18 months by this man even when you thought you had him dead to rights. I realize that must be frustratingly painful to your fragile little egos, especially after strutting around like smart asses the past 8 years. So enjoy!

just right wing fantasy, like usual.

How Trump's travel ban affects green card holders and dual citizens--http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/

 

[Boss]

Nope, Trump can't discriminate against one religion as Federal immigration policy. His order said to prioritize Christians in countries were the persecuted population is mostly Muslim.

Well, in the first place, the EO doesn't even mention "Muslim" ...the word isn't anywhere in the text of the document. So how can it be a "Muslim ban" when Muslims aren't mentioned?

Secondly, according to statutory law, the president can use any criteria he pleases to restrict travel. This has nothing to do with immigration policy.

Finally, Christians weren't mentioned in the EO either. There was a provision for refugees "of minority religions" because of religious persecution. Again, the statutory code allows the president to establish whatever criteria "he deems appropriate" and you've not proven otherwise.

The ONLY reason a stay was upheld is because there wasn't an exception made for actual green card/work/student visa holders in the original order. In spite of a written directive from the State Dept. clarifying it did not apply to those individuals, the court disallowed the addendum so they could continue the stay.

So that technicality will be fixed Monday or Tuesday and a new EO will be issued.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16559226

So, Monday or Tuesday, the President will rescind the original EO and issue a new one with the included disclaimer regarding the exceptions. If someone wants to sue and take that one to court it will win 8-0 in SCOTUS because the president does have the authority to do this.

He will have to leave the language out about prioritizing minority religions (Christians). That will piss Christians off.

It was supposedly a temporary ban based upon some problem with vetting threat. He produced no threat in court. That's because it exists only in Muslim hater's minds. If he could not produce s threat for two weeks, why can he produce one by Tomorrow?

You idiots have learned nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16562445

Well, in the first place, the EO doesn't even mention "Muslim" ...the word isn't anywhere in the text of the document. So how can it be a "Muslim ban" when Muslims aren't mentioned?

Trump called for a Muslim ban and however this gets to court, Rudy's big mouth will be in the proceedings.

And if you think writing the word Muslim is important you have a lot to learn. He picked Majority Muslim countries and then added prioritizing minority religions. If you think that is not prioritizing Christian refugees you are duped by Trump beyond recognition.

Hopefully some sane national security experts can get to Trump and explain to Trump that his Muslim ban hurts our security more than it could possibly help.

Like many Muslim haters on this board they want all Muslims permanently banned anyway. Trump can't please them. He is a fool to keep trying.

 

[danielpalos]

Boss, post: 16559226

The EO failed to specify it didn't apply to green card/student/work visa holders who may have happened to be out of the country visiting one of these nations. The State Dept. quickly clarified that it didn't apply to them but it wasn't mentioned in the EO. Because of this technicality, the judge in Washington found cause to order the stay and the 9th upheld it.

Trump is a fuckup. We all knew that. What took you so long? If the country really is in danger from improper vetting that is what Trump should have prioritized. Not letting Christians in first after a review. SoTrump fucked up not the courts. His publicity stunt to please all the Muslim haters failed.

can you blame him for trying to fulfill, his pander pledge?

 

[danielpalos]

Nope, Trump can't discriminate against one religion as Federal immigration policy. His order said to prioritize Christians in countries were the persecuted population is mostly Muslim.

Well, in the first place, the EO doesn't even mention "Muslim" ...the word isn't anywhere in the text of the document. So how can it be a "Muslim ban" when Muslims aren't mentioned?

Secondly, according to statutory law, the president can use any criteria he pleases to restrict travel. This has nothing to do with immigration policy.

Finally, Christians weren't mentioned in the EO either. There was a provision for refugees "of minority religions" because of religious persecution. Again, the statutory code allows the president to establish whatever criteria "he deems appropriate" and you've not proven otherwise.

The ONLY reason a stay was upheld is because there wasn't an exception made for actual green card/work/student visa holders in the original order. In spite of a written directive from the State Dept. clarifying it did not apply to those individuals, the court disallowed the addendum so they could continue the stay.

So that technicality will be fixed Monday or Tuesday and a new EO will be issued.

What about any potential conflicts of interest regarding Muslim countries he does business with, but are not on his "ban list"?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

can you blame him for trying to fulfill, his pander pledge?

Right. He has to keep at least one third of the country scared to death of everything Muslim and Mexican or he's done for.

 

[danielpalos]

Boss, post: 16559226

So, Monday or Tuesday, the President will rescind the original EO and issue a new one with the included disclaimer regarding the exceptions. If someone wants to sue and take that one to court it will win 8-0 in SCOTUS because the president does have the authority to do this.

He will have to leave the language out about prioritizing minority religions (Christians). That will piss Christians off.

It was supposedly a temporary ban as based upon some problem with vetting threat. He produced no threat in court. That's because it exists only in Muslim hater's minds. If he could not produce s threat for two weeks, why can he produce one by Tomorrow?

You idiots have learned nothing.

How much is all of this extra vetting going to cost? Mr. Trump pays no income taxes; is that why, is so willing to resort to the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

EverCurious, post: 16543323

Then there wouldn't be so many Christians to come in so why are you idiots pitching a fit about giving them priority?

The Constitution is pitching the fit.

Establishment Clause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal ...
Welcome to LII › wex › esta...
The First Amendment's Establishment Clauseprohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.



Foreign nationals practicing or not practicing a religion do not have a right to enter the US. But, the Federal Government cannot take action that favors one religion over another.

We know Trump favors Judeo Christianity over Muslims by his campaign.

 

[Boss]

Boss, post: 16562445

Well, in the first place, the EO doesn't even mention "Muslim" ...the word isn't anywhere in the text of the document. So how can it be a "Muslim ban" when Muslims aren't mentioned?

Trump called for a Muslim ban and however this gets to court, Rudy's big mouth will be in the proceedings.

And if you think writing the word Muslim is important you have a lot to learn. He picked Majority Muslim countries and then added prioritizing minority religions. If you think that is not prioritizing Christian refugees you are duped by Trump beyond recognition.

Hopefully some sane national security experts can get to Trump and explain to Trump that his Muslim ban hurts our security more than it could possibly help.

Like many Muslim haters on this board they want all Muslims permanently banned anyway. Trump can't please them. He is a fool to keep trying.

Trump called for a Muslim ban...

All that matters here is what's in the EO.

And if you think writing the word Muslim is important you have a lot to learn.

No, you have a lot to learn but it's okay, you'll get educated soon.

He picked Majority Muslim countries and then added prioritizing minority religions.

No, Obama picked the countries and only one is among the Top 5 Muslim countries. He did make an exception for refugees in danger of religious persecution and you'll soon realize he is within his authority to do that.

If you think that is not prioritizing Christian refugees you are duped by Trump beyond recognition.

This is not a matter of what anyone thinks. You can't legally challenge what isn't in the EO.

...explain to Trump that his Muslim ban hurts our security...

It's not a Muslim ban.

Like many Muslim haters on this board they want all Muslims permanently banned anyway.

Irrelevant.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution is pitching the fit.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause has absolutely nothing to do with this. Sorry!

 

[Boss]

Foreign nationals practicing or not practicing a religion do not have a right to enter the US. But, the Federal Government cannot take action that favors one religion over another.

Nonsense. Do you think we went to war in Afghanistan to kill Christians and Jews?

You are TRYING to apply the Constitution to people not from America! Dipshit!

How many times do we have to go trough this? The Constitution does not apply to people in a foreign country where we cannot enforce the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is talking about the Federal government with regards to CITIZENS!

If the United States wants to favor Christians over the Muslims who are slaughtering them, they have the full authority to do so. If they want to favor Jews over Muslims who want to nuke them, they can do that too. There is nothing that restricts or binds the Federal government from actions abroad. Our Constitution doesn't apply to other people in other countries, it never has.

You are undoubtedly the dumbest motherfucker here.

 

[EverCurious]

I posted a video from 2015 where Obama's immigration Admin stated under oath that they prioritize Christians as a prosecuted religion, so no it's not unconstitutional despite ya'lls fantasies.