Travel Ban 3: Return of the Judges

[jdbond592]

This is something that is fully within President Trump's power.

This is Judicial Activism at it's most obvious and these judges deserve to be punished for it.

So a "conservative" SCOTUS was appointed to ...not be a judicial activist?

Are you against judicial activism in general or or just the ones you don't like?

[Orbitus]

Just curious, removed by whom? Like, who gets to decide, if they are activists or just doing their job?

Obviously Republican presidents. Because if a Democrat president removed a ruling or removed a judge they didn't like then obviously it is against the constitution. Penguin just wants his side to have all the power, but if he happens to not be the ruling party, he wants to take it away.

- - - Updated - - -

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

No, he can't. He can't stop people from coming to this country based on religion. We have a 1st and 14th amendment that protects that.

[Arunu]

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

seeing it was shot down by enforcers of that very same law it seems he can not. weird that

[shimerra]

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

No he cannot. In fact there was an entire law written about it and congress wrote it 50 years ago restricting the President's power based on national origin. That very same code you stupidly misquote is also restricted here so he cannot restrict entrance based on religion among other things.

You do not understand the law. Please read the law before spouting off like a dumbass. Congress can and rightfully has restricted the President's powers in this area and it's not a fucking new law and the courts are following the law. Why do you hate the law in favor of an authoritarian regime ignoring the will of the people? Is it because it's an authoritarian doing things you like or is it because brown/muslim people scare you? Don't be scared you have guns!

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmi...ality_act.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

[Xeones]

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

Good thing we have a constitution so what ever arbitrary things you decide to interpret aren't relevant.

[Noradin]

Good thing we have a constitution so what ever arbitrary things you decide to interpret aren't relevant.

But THE constitution does not RANDOMLY use all caps for some words so it does not count! Exclamation MARK!

[Kiri]

The real question here is: are there any potential terrorists still outside the US by now that wanted to come in? You'd think that they would have all come already, given how hard the Trump Admin is trying to get this set up. How can this ban still be as urgent and important as it was in the beginning?
And wasn't this ban not supposed to just tide people over until better vetting methods were implemented? Where are those vetting methods? Trump said he needed 90 days to implement them, that hundreds of days ago.

[Grapemask]

It's not what is written (Trump's not writing it no mater what...) but the reasons Trump keeps giving for it. At this point, he really can't do much since he spent so much time talking about how it was a ban on Muslims.

This is also true, and one of many reasons he needs to stop tweeting and, well, speaking publicly at all. His tweets have been referenced in these decisions more than once.

- - - Updated - - -

The real question here is: are there any potential terrorists still outside the US by now that wanted to come in? You'd think that they would have all come already, given how hard the Trump Admin is trying to get this set up. How can this ban still be as urgent and important as it was in the beginning?
And wasn't this ban not supposed to just tide people over until better vetting methods were implemented? Where are those vetting methods? Trump said he needed 90 days to implement them, that hundreds of days ago.

He's probably discovered what everyone but his supporters already knew - the US has had "extreme vetting" since at least 2010, but even before that, it's been pretty extreme since 2001.

[Xeones]

The real question here is: are there any potential terrorists still outside the US by now that wanted to come in? You'd think that they would have all come already, given how hard the Trump Admin is trying to get this set up. How can this ban still be as urgent and important as it was in the beginning?
And wasn't this ban not supposed to just tide people over until better vetting methods were implemented? Where are those vetting methods? Trump said he needed 90 days to implement them, that hundreds of days ago.

It was never about stopping terrorists.

This was just a nod to racists. Target poor muslim countries he has no financial ties in (none of which have actually sent terrorists to us before). Makes racists happy and doesn't deal any harm to him, directly anyways.

[Vankrys]

I see the 9th Circus is at it again.



False.

You do not, unless you are a citizen, have a right to enter the US.

You do not have a right to enter ANY nation if they so choose to exclude you.

you don't understand. Those people being banned were lawful resident. They had visas, green cards, they were students, workers, they had their lives in the US. they paid taxes and were useful members of society.

I can relate. I am french but i studied in the US. I had a student visa. I can't imagine if i were to go home for christmas, then try to come back to los angeles and being blocked at the airport and deported back to france.

That's why i disagree with the ban. Those people were legal immigrant.

[Machismo]

It's startling just how often Trump and his supporters find themselves opposing individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets.

[Xeones]

It's startling just how often Trump and his supporters find themselves opposing individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets.

Individual liberty only applies to them and the people like them.

Limited government means the government ignore them and attacks those they dislike.

Free markets means worship the rich.

[Machismo]

Individual liberty only applies to them and the people like them.

Limited government means the government ignore them and attacks those they dislike.

Free markets means worship the rich.

The worst part about it... you are actually telling the truth.

[Macaquerie]

You know, even Trump's initial speech on the Muslim ban only said it was going to be until we figured out "what the hell was going on." Is Trump trying to say that he still hasn't got the situation figured out?

[FlatBootyJudy]

It was never about stopping terrorists.

This was just a nod to racists. Target poor muslim countries he has no financial ties in (none of which have actually sent terrorists to us before). Makes racists happy and doesn't deal any harm to him, directly anyways.

I am laughing if you really do believe this, the left wing media has you brainwashed.

- - - Updated - - -

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

Liberals only care about laws when it suits their own needs, besides that laws be damn. This is why they protest against police and support criminals.

[cubby]

This is something that is fully within President Trump's power.

This is Judicial Activism at it's most obvious and these judges deserve to be punished for it.

So we have a choice of believing you or sitting Federal Judges. Hmmmmmmm . . . I'm going to go ahead and side with the people who have worked with the law their entire lives. Mkay?

The only reason you think it's judicial "activism" is because you disagree. I'm sure you were just frothing at the mouth with glee when Obama was stymied by judges.

- - - Updated - - -

Derrick Watson will soon be impeached and removed from the bench.

There are a couple of people ahead of him on the impeachment train ride. Just hold your breath though - it will happen.

This case needs to go directly to the SCOTUS. It is time to clarify the Executive Branch's power, once and for all, so that the advocacy emanating from judges like Watson is completely halted.

In what world do you think it won't? *Woke'd* again, eh?

The POTUS can SOLELY determine - based on ANY criteria he decides - who is allowed into this country. That power is granted to him by US Code 1182. This is a black and white issue. there is NO gray here. If he wants to specifically ban Muslims he is allowed to, whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Period.

Nope. Again - armchair legal guy who can find code or federal judges who have devote their lives to the law. Gonna go with the dedicated, and leave the "departed" to your mouth frothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberals only care about laws when it suits their own needs, besides that laws be damn. This is why they protest against police and support criminals.

Trump's few actual moves are being torn apart by every conceivable part of government. Travel ban: Poof! ACA assassination: Poof! He's the most impotent president since hoover - and even that guy did stuff before being shut down.

[Deleted]

You do not understand the law. Please read the law before spouting off like a dumbass. Congress can and rightfully has restricted the President's powers in this area and it's not a fucking new law and the courts are following the law. Why do you hate the law in favor of an authoritarian regime ignoring the will of the people? Is it because it's an authoritarian doing things you like or is it because brown/muslim people scare you? Don't be scared you have guns![/url]

How about YOU read the law before stating spouting off like a dumbass:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

"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."

What the fuck part of that do you not understand? Fuck the 9th, there is NO caveat in that law that says - "you are only allowed to do this IF is does not violate US 1152".

US 1152 governs the normal immigration process. it does NOT cover the POTUS's ability - granted under US 1182 - that allows HIM - NOT SOME PIECE OF SHIT LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGE - to determine who is of a national security threat.

The worthless judges on the 9th that wrote the last opinion did not rule on the actual laws - they ruled on their fucking "feelings". The dipshit from Hawaii waited until yesterday to issue the TEMPORARY injunction to maximize the perceived negative impact on Trump.

That's fine, let them play their stupid and feckless game. Trump will win in the end - just like he did the last time. Only this time, the SCOTUS will back him 100% (just like 4 judges wanted to the first time.)

Personally, I hope he cuts of ALL IMMIGRATION, just to give the Liberals - and these worthless "judges" - the middle finger (which is exactly what Trump voters did last November.)

[Xeones]

I am laughing if you really do believe this, the left wing media has you brainwashed.

You're the brainwashed one who can't look at the world and see reality.

[Sky High]

all this winning guys, so much not getting anything done!

- - - Updated - - -

I am laughing if you really do believe this, the left wing media has you brainwashed.

that's nice honey.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Liberals only care about laws when it suits their own needs, besides that laws be damn. This is why they protest against police and support criminals.

Which is why conservatives are actively trying to dismantle every law they can and back a criminal in the oval office.