Court knows threat better than President

[Babagounj]

maroon Trump promised a Muslim ban during his campaign, which he cannot walk back.

Understand?

What you fail to understand is that if this court ruling stands than everyone now & the future can be tried & convicted without a trial . Just go before a judge and have them issue an order for what the accused maybe thinking. Forget the law . It does not matter any more the Judges have stolen the power of Congress and The Executive Branch to make the voices absolute .

It was a decision based on politics, not the law .

 

[Babagounj]

I hear Trump got so hot over their decision that he needed 4 Russia women to pee on him to cool down.

I heard it really was 4 women and you .

 

[Babagounj]

And all this time I've Gotta Package 4U has been trying to break it .

 

[Babagounj]

It appears your civics education has been lacking. For reference the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You spoke in favor of a total ban and deportation of Muslims in this country. That would prevent the free exercise of religion. America was founded by people seeking free exercise of their religion, denying that right violates the spirit of the country.

Having judges making rulings on politics and not the merits of the law has already killed off the spirit .
We have become a country governed by men in black robes , no longer a nation of WE THE PEOPLE .

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Forget the law . It does not matter any more

Welcome to America. Hope you enjoy your orifices being filled by the long arm of the "law".

 

[Babagounj]

According to the deranged MrFedx , he would say that I would enjoy it .

 

[Babagounj]

Now for more queer news .

9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

In a rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It’s not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there are enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt on Trump’s controversial travel ban or if the judge simply wasn’t satisfied with the panel’s decision. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws yet another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the 9th Circuit Court has instructed both Trump’s DOJ team and lawyers for the State of Washington and Minnesota to file briefs due by Thursday February 16th, stating whether they believe the motion should be considered en banc. To get a rehearing, a majority of the 29 active judges on the court would need to vote in favor. Some legal experts contend however that it is unlikely that a majority of judges (most of whom were appointed by Democrats) would agree to this.

 

[It will be fine]

What you fail to understand is that if this court ruling stands than everyone now & the future can be tried & convicted without a trial . Just go before a judge and have them issue an order for what the accused maybe thinking. Forget the law . It does not matter any more the Judges have stolen the power of Congress and The Executive Branch to make the voices absolute .

It was a decision based on politics, not the law .

That is an insane interpretation. Trump spent months campaigning about banning Muslims. He publicly asked his advisors how to legally get away with a Muslim ban. Then he signed an EO banning Muslims. He argued before the court that it wasn't intended as a Muslim ban. That is an argument made in bad faith and the court didn't buy it.

 

[newfie]

That is an insane interpretation. Trump spent months campaigning about banning Muslims. He publicly asked his advisors how to legally get away with a Muslim ban. Then he signed an EO banning Muslims. He argued before the court that it wasn't intended as a Muslim ban. That is an argument made in bad faith and the court didn't buy it.

you are either misinformed or dishonest.

Intitally shortly after the San Bernidino shooting he talked about a total muslim ban until America could figure out what the heck was going on. that quickly changed into his position on extreme vetting from countries that support terrorism

at this point his travel ban on 7 countries affects 15 percent of the muslim population. Despite that many of the biased media sources continue to misrepresent it as a muslim ban.

at this point you are either part of the dishonest misrepresentation or you will show us you have integrity and stop misrepresenting this . lets see what happens.

 

[oldngray]

you are either misinformed or dishonest.

Intitally shortly after the San Bernidino shooting he talked about a total muslim ban until America could figure out what the heck was going on. that quickly changed into his position on extreme vetting from countries that support terrorism

at this point his travel ban on 7 countries affects 15 percent of the muslim population. Despite that many of the biased media sources continue to misrepresent it as a muslim ban.

at this point you are either part of the dishonest misrepresentation or you will show us you have integrity and stop misrepresenting this . lets see what happens.

Also the ban applied to all people from those 7 countries, including members of other religions.

It was NOT a Muslim ban.

The 9th made no ruling on the legality of Trump's EO either. They just refused to overturn the original emergency stay. That case will still be heard in court (next month?) but since the EO was only a 90 day hold the delay for court renders it moot.

Trump will just cancel the original EO and write a new one.

 

[It will be fine]

Also the ban applied to all people from those 7 countries, including members of other religions.

It was MOT a Muslim ban.

The 9th made no ruling on the legality of Trump's EO either. They just refused to overturn the original emergency stay. That case will still be heard in court (next month?) but since the EO was only a 90 day hold the delay for court renders it moot.

Trump will just cancel the original EO and write a new one.

He should give up and try again, this time actually consulting with the defense, state and justice departments. It would be nice to hear what part of the refugee vetting process he has a problem with too. It takes a minimum of 2 years often up to 4 or 5 years to be approved as a refugee. I'd like to know what his issue is and how he plans to solve it.

 

[MrFedEx]

What you fail to understand is that if this court ruling stands than everyone now & the future can be tried & convicted without a trial . Just go before a judge and have them issue an order for what the accused maybe thinking. Forget the law . It does not matter any more the Judges have stolen the power of Congress and The Executive Branch to make the voices absolute .

It was a decision based on politics, not the law .

Actually, you're just whining because your side lost. Obviously, you don't understand our system of checks and balances, which isn't surprising. When decisions go your way, it's all OK.

 

[MrFedEx]

Also the ban applied to all people from those 7 countries, including members of other religions.

It was MOT a Muslim ban.

The 9th made no ruling on the legality of Trump's EO either. They just refused to overturn the original emergency stay. That case will still be heard in court (next month?) but since the EO was only a 90 day hold the delay for court renders it moot.

Trump will just cancel the original EO and write a new one.

Candidate Trump portrayed it as a Muslim ban, which was obviously used in court against him.

 

[MrFedEx]

Having judges making rulings on politics and not the merits of the law has already killed off the spirit .
We have become a country governed by men in black robes , no longer a nation of WE THE PEOPLE .

Yes, folks like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who were (and are) reliable rubber stamps approving anything Right Wing. You are just dumb, buddy.

 

[oldngray]

Candidate Trump portrayed it as a Muslim ban, which was obviously used in court against him.

Not the same as the EO.

Just a liberal excuse to ignore the law.

 

[MrFedEx]

Not the same as the EO.

Just a liberal excuse to ignore the law.

No. Trump's intent was to implement a Muslim ban. Rudy Giuliani conformed this in a recent interview.

 

[MrFedEx]

you are either misinformed or dishonest.

Intitally shortly after the San Bernidino shooting he talked about a total muslim ban until America could figure out what the heck was going on. that quickly changed into his position on extreme vetting from countries that support terrorism

at this point his travel ban on 7 countries affects 15 percent of the muslim population. Despite that many of the biased media sources continue to misrepresent it as a muslim ban.

at this point you are either part of the dishonest misrepresentation or you will show us you have integrity and stop misrepresenting this . lets see what happens.

Very creative. Trump wanted a Muslim ban, and Rudy Giuliani recently confirmed this in an interview. What is there not to understand? The President gets checked by the judiciary when he tries to exceed his powers or does something illegal and/or unconstitutional.

I hope a family of Syrians moves in next door to you.

 

[Babagounj]

What position does R.G. serve in this administration ?

 

[oldngray]

No. Trump's intent was to implement a Muslim ban. Rudy Giuliani conformed this in a recent interview.

A judge is not supposed to be a mind reader. They are supposed to follow what the law says. Trump's order was legal according to the law.

 

[MrFedEx]

A judge is not supposed to be a mind reader. They are supposed to follow what the law says. Trump's order was legal according to the law.

It's so coincidental that all of your fallacious arguments are from FOX. I guess you all want to undermine our Constitution so Trump can be your dictator.

Not me.