Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Damajin]

First off: I am likely older then you are 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 - - -


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

- - - Updated - - -



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

It's possible you are older, or not. The kids comment was general and all inclusive, so you can think whatever you like about it.

No, it's been ruled wrong by activist judges operating on the "living constitution" mentality, which is in itself wrong and thus invalid.

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -



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

Yeah, I don't worry about it too much which is why I get banned a fair bit. No big deal.

[Jtbrig7390]

It's possible you are older, or not. The kids comment was general and all inclusive, so you can think whatever you like about it.

No, it's been ruled wrong by activist judges operating on the "living constitution" mentality, which is in itself wrong and thus invalid.

I think a judge knows more about the constitution and how our system works over some random forum poster.

Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean the Judges ruling is wrong.

Welcome to Checks and Balances.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I don't worry about it too much which is why I get banned a fair bit. No big deal.

You get banned a fair bit because you break the rules. I have been banned countless times (just came off a ban). I don't wine and blame others for it, I accept I broke a rule and was banned for it.

[Damajin]

I think a judge knows more about the constitution and how our system works over some random forum poster.

Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean the Judges ruling is wrong.

Welcome to Checks and Balances.

- - - Updated - - -



You get banned a fair bit because you break the rules. I have been banned countless times (just came off a ban). I don't wine and blame others for it, I accept I broke a rule and was banned for it.

I wasn't whining about it either. Unlike you I spelled that correctly btw.

It's not checks and balances when the ruling is inherently wrong. But hey go on and think that judges are infallible, unable and unwilling to assert their own particular biases and viewpoints and emotional beliefs into things.

[Jtbrig7390]

I wasn't whining about it either. Unlike you I spelled that correctly btw.

It's not checks and balances when the ruling is inherently wrong. But hey go on and think that judges are infallible, unable and unwilling to assert their own particular biases and viewpoints and emotional beliefs into things.

All that matters is the judges ruling on the subject. If Trump think's the SCOTUS can over turn it by all means go for it.

The outcome won't change. You can Feel the ruling is Inherently wrong, doesn't make your feeling correct.

Once again I'm 100% sure a Judge knows more then you. As for my spelling, yep my grammar sucks at times, thanks for pointing that out.

Judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional, End of Story. Give round 3 a try.

[prwraith]

You can't say it's to ban the muslims and then later say it's for a different reason and have any claim to validity.

[Damajin]

All that matters is the judges ruling on the subject. If Trump think's the SCOTUS can over turn it by all means go for it.

The outcome won't change. You can Feel the ruling is Inherently wrong, doesn't make your feeling correct.

Once again I'm 100% sure a Judge knows more then you. As for my spelling, yep my grammar sucks at times, thanks for pointing that out.

Judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional, End of Story. Give round 3 a try.

You trust the judge because you agree with the ruling. If you didn't then you wouldn't and we'd be on opposite sides of the argument, which is an inherent problem in this age with words not having an exact meaning and the notion of living Constitution being an operating political principle.

[Adam Jensen]

1st Amendment rights and the other rights guaranteed in our Constitution don't apply to non citizens, so GG on this court thinking with their globalist cap firmly on.

It still establishes a defacto religion in the US via favoritism in the meanwhile, so it still violates the First.

[Jtbrig7390]

You trust the judge because you agree with the ruling. If you didn't then you wouldn't and we'd be on opposite sides of the argument, which is an inherent problem in this age with words not having an exact meaning and the notion of living Constitution being an operating political principle.

Nice one, deflect to what if's and maybe could of's. That is a sign when someone has lost there argument.

My work here is done.

[Shadowferal]

It's not checks and balances when the ruling is inherently wrong.

That's your opinion. And Trump's.
So where do you go from there? Because what you're leading to is going against the US Constitution. And if our body of laws and the checks and balances are all wrong then maybe our country isn't for you.

[Hiricine]

Its always interesting to watch the start of a new tactic. Previously, judged generally stayed away from making large scale blocks like this.

My prediction--- We're going to see the judiciary become more politicized, and this will not be Trumps last EO that faces a block from this level, and we will see future presidents confounded by the reality of almost impossible to remove individual judges blocking their actions. I doubt there ever would be the political will to have them removed by Congress, and we are going to have the same discussion 4 or 8 years from now about a Democrat president and reference this very discussion and how the sides were flipped.

[Samitsu]

Funny how useful morons will fight for the rights of terrorists to enter the US.

[TZucchini]

Funny how useful morons will fight for the rights of terrorists to enter the US.

lol @ thinking the travel ban will stop terrorists from entering the US.

ARE YOU AFRAID YET??

[Deleted]

Funny how useful morons will fight for the rights of terrorists to enter the US.

That's not the case at all, and to think such is wilful ignorance. Many thousands times more people from the affected regions are not terrorists, than are.

[Jtbrig7390]

Funny how useful morons will fight for the rights of terrorists to enter the US.

Muslim doesn't equal Terrorist champ....

[Shadowferal]

Funny how useful morons will fight for the rights of terrorists to enter the US.

Funny how useful morons think about a travel ban that doesn't mention Saudi Arabia...
And before 9/11 we had the OK bombing...guess who?

Morons is a good word but not for those opposed to idiocy.

[Damajin]

Nice one, deflect to what if's and maybe could of's. That is a sign when someone has lost there argument.

My work here is done.

Not at all, pointing out the reality of a situation isn't deflecting at all and my argument was never lost because it's never been legitimately questioned.

- - - Updated - - -

It still establishes a defacto religion in the US via favoritism in the meanwhile, so it still violates the First.

No it doesn't, this is ridiculous.

[mage21]

Maybe you are thinking about this. A fox news interview with Stephen Miller in which he talked about the new travel ban proposals.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ravel-ban.html

I'm talking about this CNN interview from a year ago:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...-us/index.html

[Jtbrig7390]

Not at all, pointing out the reality of a situation isn't deflecting at all and my argument was never lost because it's never been legitimately questioned.

The reality of the situation is, Trump lost again.

Come back for round 3, he lines them up and they will be knocked down each time.

[Orbitus]

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?


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.

That wasn't a ban of a religion, just part of their religious practice. If you compared the 2, Muslims vs Mormons and your argument, it would be like banning something like a Burqa. They weren't banned because they were Mormons though.

[Damajin]

The reality of the situation is, Trump lost again.

Come back for round 3, he lines them up and they will be knocked down each time.

Certainly possible, we'll see.