Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Zamfix]

Whoever that Dimocrat "judge" is should be impeached.

Judges aren't there to rubber stamp whatever the president says. If the president does something unconstitutional it's up to a judge to block it. If Obama had actually tried to take everyone's guns like they thought he would (lol) a judge probably would have blocked that too.

[Ghostpanther]

Just a indication of how we have checks and balances in this country to prevent any President from being a dictator. I agree with Trump's travel ban and think the judge is wrong. Let's see what the appeals court rules. Trump should take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. After he gets a new Supreme Court nominee approved however.

[Orbitus]

I'm not a Republican.

But you sure do keep defending Republicans quite a lot. Let me guess, you are an "independent voter" just like Zenkai. You sure do spend a lot of time polishing the knobs of Republicans for someone that claims to be "independent".

[Sinyc]

This time in Hawaii based on the 1st Amendment in the 9th Circuit again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/u...ravel-ban.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...judge-j0bk602s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.75f1e4348e1b

Good, I am glad this got blocked before it ever took effect. This course of action will not have the outcome Trump and his followers expect it to.

I understand this was a campaign promise, but it was a stupid one that was only used to rile up his fans.

[Orbitus]

Just a indication of how we have checks and balances in this country to prevent any President from being a dictator. I agree with Trump's travel ban and think the judge is wrong. Let's see what the appeals court rules. Trump should take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. After he gets a new Supreme Court nominee approved however.

Won't happen. But good luck.

[Ghostpanther]

Judges aren't there to rubber stamp whatever the president says. If the president does something unconstitutional it's up to a judge to block it. If Obama had actually tried to take everyone's guns like they thought he would (lol) a judge probably would have blocked that too.

For sure. Even Obama had one of his executive orders declared a violation of the Constitution.

[Belize]

@zenkai
Countries of concern is a piss poor fucking excuse. You know what else is a dangerous country of concern? Congo.

The Obama-Era list was to highlight particularly unstable or hostile countries.

That doesn't mean they're dangerous to US soil. All it did was strenghten the Visa program, just to make sure none of the Visa holders happened to use a training camp as their pre-flight hotel. Which has worked since no terrorist on U.S. soil has come from those countries.

Please try critical thinking, instead of continually blindly defending Trump's actions.

[Xeones]

Just a indication of how we have checks and balances in this country to prevent any President from being a dictator. I agree with Trump's travel ban and think the judge is wrong. Let's see what the appeals court rules. Trump should take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. After he gets a new Supreme Court nominee approved however.

I'd like to think his stolen appointment would have to recuse himself.

[Astalnar]

Name one time in the past that we have discriminated against immigrants and refugees using religion. I bet you can't name one. And no, the constitution doesn't only apply to US Citizens.

Mormons.
In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
http://www.historycentral.com/docume...rationact.html

So, you're telling me, that US constitution applies to Democratic Republic of the Congo, Commonwealth of Australia or even Kingdom of Spain as much as to the USA? I don't know where you've been all this time, but there is this thing called jurisdiction. In short, you can enforce your own laws only withing your own borders. It's not like you're trying to advocare in favour of "One People, One Empire, One Leader", are you?

"Its impossible for me murdering this black person to be racially motivated because I didn't kill every black person"

There is flaw in your argument. Why do you presume you would only kill a black man because he is black? You could kill him for various array of reasons that have nothing to do with race.

[Ghostpanther]

I'd like to think his stolen appointment would have to recuse himself.

Of course not. Wishful thinking at best. And the odds are good he will get to appoint another or two before his term is up.

[Damajin]

But you sure do keep defending Republicans quite a lot. Let me guess, you are an "independent voter" just like Zenkai. You sure do spend a lot of time polishing the knobs of Republicans for someone that claims to be "independent".

No, I'm not an "independent voter" that's just a weak excuse that too many people make.

It's not a Republican position to be pro Muslim ban, they just happen to be the ones carrying the torch for it at the moment.

[Xeones]

There is flaw in your argument. Why do you presume you would only kill a black man because he is black? You could kill him for various array of reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Uh... this is the defense the administration is trying. "It can't be a muslim ban because they didn't ban all muslim majority countries". The judge shot that down:

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. [...] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

The example you quoted uses "I" which leaves no room for presumption so I'm not sure what you're trying here.

[xenogear3]

Should not Trump the most powerful man on Earth?

[Paulosio]

This was not a surprise. It's basically the same justification as last time. Not only that, you have Trump and his administration's words to use against them. They also have the issue of taking Iraq off of the list, after they lobbied for it. It undermines their entire stated intent for the law, which is something that courts can, and do take into account. It would be very difficult to take the forst one to the SC, since the administration sought to push a watered-down version.

I mean it literally says its a ban on Muslims on his own website....

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...im-immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Then you've got people like Rudy Giulianni telling us about conversations he had with Trump about how to get a Muslim banned past the courts via technicalities and pretending it's not a Muslim ban (despite him campaigning on it being just that and hoping people had somehow forgotten). Maybe he can just claim he didn't say it and say something about fake media as that seems to be enough to con most of his followers...

And you've got Donald Trump himself saying last night that the new ban is just a watered down version of the old one that didn't pass....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-talking.html

Donald Trump last night at another of his rallies: "This is a watered-down version of the first one,”

[Shadowferal]

Judge uses Trump's allies own words

Judge Derrick Watson noted that senior adviser Stephen Miller said in a Fox News interview that the revised order was fundamentally the same as the first, despite a few key changes intended to bolster the administration's case in court.

Miller told the station that the new order would have the "same basic policy outcome for the country," and that the revisions were meant to address the concerns of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a Seattle federal judge's halt on the first travel ban.

Watson also said there’s nothing “secret about the motive of Trump’s executive order" and went on to quote top Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, who said Trump originally called it a "Muslim ban."

“He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally,’” Giuliani is quoted as saying.

“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote.
------------------------

I'm sure those that always say 'Trump is winning again and again...' will of course avoid this thread.

[Ghostpanther]

No, I'm not an "independent voter" that's just a weak excuse that too many people make.

It's not a Republican position to be pro Muslim ban, they just happen to be the ones carrying the torch for it at the moment.

I am not a registered Republican and have no plans to become one. I have always considered myself a independent. But like you, the Republican party at this time is more in agreement with my views than the Democrats who have gone off the deep end. I voted for Ralph Nader one year, and for Obama the first time he ran. I really disliked Bush as a President. But actually both of the Bush's. And if you check, Trump actually got a lot of independent voters to vote for him. So using the term Independent voter is not a weak excuse, but a valid stance in today's political world.

[Damajin]

I am not a registered Republican and have no plans to become one. I have always considered myself a independent. But like you, the Republican party at this time is more in agreement with my views than the Democrats who have gone off the deep end. I voted for Ralph Nader one year, and for Obama the first time he ran. I really disliked Bush as a President. But actually both of the Bush's. And if you check, Trump actually got a lot of independent voters to vote for him. So using the term Independent voter is not a lame excuse, but a valid stance in today's political world.

I find at least on this board Independent voter status tends to get used as a copout, or as an attempt to appear moderate or more principled than some of these people are.

[Xeones]

I find at least on this board Independent voter status tends to get used as a copout, or as an attempt to appear moderate or more principled than some of these people are.

It is. You see people with very clear beliefs through their posts claiming independence.

[Ghostpanther]

I find at least on this board Independent voter status tends to get used as a copout, or as an attempt to appear moderate or more principled than some of these people are.

I also find this board to have more liberal posters than conservative ones. This Forum can be educational to some degree and it for sure can be entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -

It is. You see people with very clear beliefs through their posts claiming independence.

That is how independents are. They can share some views with both sides of the political parties.

[Jtbrig7390]

Haha, in the day of words meaning whatever you want them to mean kids like you sure get to act all high and mighty. Amusing.

- - - Updated - - -



I wasn't proven wrong. Orbitus has basically said I'm wrong and I don't have the right to an opinion because my opinion is irrelevant. Basically trolling in a nutshell when you get down to it.

First off: I am likely older then you are so the kid comment is just stupid and childish. Even more so when all you keep doing is stating a opinion and calling it fact. While also ignoring the FACT your opinion has been proven wrong countless times. I'm sure this isn't ur first thread where u have stated such opinion.

Second: You are welcome to have a opinion, just remember that all you have is a opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a indication of how we have checks and balances in this country to prevent any President from being a dictator. I agree with Trump's travel ban and think the judge is wrong. Let's see what the appeals court rules. Trump should take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. After he gets a new Supreme Court nominee approved however.

Seeing how they turned down dealing with the first one, Ya likely won't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I also find this board to have more liberal posters than conservative ones.

And I find this board to have a lot of people who use this copout.