• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

I read the ruling and
The court refused to reinstate the ban and hold TRO on the basis that states have shown that it would aversely affect residents in the area of employment, travel and that it would harm the implementation of their universities and higher learning.
However it never says how it would harm.
The ruling isn't as weak as the initial ruling which was purely speculative with no legal precedent, but this one is pretty weak too.
So now they will end up presenting briefs and having hearings and a ruling later on and drag it out awhile.

This was a political decision by a partisan liberal activist court
 
America could have had a 9th justice without the nuclear option of McConnell. The choice of Garland upset the liberal wing of the DEMs. America wins today over the alt-right tyranny of trump/Bannon .

America won today? You speak for America? How are we safer today than we were with the ban? How about you adopting a terrorist or taking in a few of those immigrants? That liberal logic, love Trumps's response, See you in Court. What the hell do you people expect from the President if you oppose the basic charge he has as President, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE??
 
The 9th District Court always overturns the will of the people, that's been their chief objective for decades. They serve the ACLU and DNC only.

First, the "will of the people" you suggest here does not exist in this case. America is pretty split on this, but that is not germane.

The fact is that the "will of the people" is irrelevant. One of the main jobs of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What is also not germane is that the EO is a pretty stupid approach to the problem, but that is another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Wow!

Not just 3-0, but a 19 page repudiation declaring the EO has Constitutional issues?

I'm a little blown away on this, especially their argument claiming Constitutional issues of the EO itself. I listened to the arguments live, and did not see this coming.

Trump is an idiot if he appeals this to the SC with their arguing against the Constitutional issues. He's far better to let the order expire, and let the EO get challenged on another district court's affirmed ruling. That way in a 4-4 SC tie the EO will stand, rather than have the Constitutional issues remain in this ruling.
 
Well, maybe it won't be so bad, eh?

What's the rest of the worlds experience with these refugees / migrants?

Liberal Teacher Takes In Muslim Refugee, His Colleague Finds ...
madworldnews.com/liberal-teacher-muslim-refugee/
Mar 24, 2016 - A leftist professor decided to put into practice his own liberal "open doors" policy, feeding and housing a poor Muslim refugee in his own home. ... It was there that the colleague found Mehdi butchered and lying dead in a pool of his ... or we are accepting millions of barbaric Muslim males who hold fast to ...

Liberals Find Out What Happens When You Open Your Home To ...
madworldnews.com/liberals-home-muslim-refugees/
Dec 27, 2015 - However, it didn't take long for their liberal policies to backfire in a ... opened their home to a group of Muslim refugees allegedly fleeing devout Muslim militants. ... that they would kill Andrew if the pair didn't leave the property.

Liberal Host Family HORRIFIED By What Refugee Did To Their Young ...
usherald.com/liberal-host-family-horrified-refugee-young-daughter/
Jan 8, 2016 - You open your home to a Syrian refugee and you come home to your 7-year old daughter's throat slit and her dead in a pool of her own blood. .... and to take them into your home you are putting your family in jeopardy.

Woman welcomes Muslim 'refugee' into home, gets raped - WND.com
Woman welcomes Muslim ‘refugee’ into home, gets raped
May 31, 2016 - WND Exclusive. Woman welcomes Muslim 'refugee' into home, gets raped. 'Left has suicidal death wish'. Published: 05/31/2016 at 7:44 PM.

Teacher Brutally Murdered By Afghan Migrant - Breitbart
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/.../teacher-brutally-murdered-by-afghan-migrant/
Mar 24, 2016 - The chief suspect in a brutal murder case that has been the source of ... Mehdi also provided interpreter services for the asylum home and that was how he ... It is thought that the murder came out of an argument between the pair and that it has escalated into violence. ... Liberal media WON'T report them.

'Refugee Child' Sexually Assaults 10-Year-Old Girl After Liberal ...
www.breitbart.com/.../refugee-child-sexually-assaults-10-year-old-girl-after-liberal-pa...
May 12, 2016 - A migrant in Sweden, posing as a "child refugee", has been found guilty of ... It is not known if he will be welcomed back into the home of the ...

Swedish Woman Murdered by Muslim Refugees that she Supported ...
eaglerising.com/.../swedish-woman-murdered-by-muslim-refugees-that-she-supported...
Swedish Woman Murdered by Muslim Refugees that she Supported! ... providing they assimilate into the society that they are immigrating into. ... the people of Sweden for the duration of his sentence as they provide food, clothing and housing.

SWEDISH liberal bleeding heart opens her home to Muslim refugee ...
www.barenakedislam.com/.../swedish-liberal-bleeding-heart-opens-her-home-to-musli...
May 11, 2016 - SWEDISH liberal bleeding heart opens her home to Muslim refugee who ... three children in Sweden brought two third world asylum seekers into her home. ... Lets hope jihadis and refugees rape beat and kill politicians' kids wives .... It's not just that “chip”, it's the ACCEPTANCE of it that makes it the “mark”.

LIBERAL Takes Muslim 'Refugee' To His Home, Police Find What's ...
www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2016/03/24/liberal-muslim-refugee-police/
Mar 24, 2016 - It is thought that the murder came out of an argument between the pair and that it has escalated into violence. The Afghan is thought to have ...

Ahh. No. Yeah, if the West coast is of the mind to open their hearts, minds and homes to refugees and migrants, by all means, let them take them all.
 
No, there was. That's not the problem.

The problem is that in congressional testimony, Obama's security department leaders were saying that it wasn't

Please have trump get rid of his incompetent alt-right writers of this EO and get some competent people running this Nation .
 
You could have written a more competent EO than that done by Bannon/Miller.

trump and America are being ill-served by trump's kabal of alt-rightists .

These unelected liberal judges just assumed responsibility for national security

And they are not entitled to have that power
 
Given the content of the executive order, the 9th circuit would have upheld the restraining order regardless of anything else. Anyone who follows the 9th's decisions, knows that it's just a collective of 29 activist judges, wildly out of touch with mainstream Americans, making a salary that puts them in the 1% and thus able to avoid the ramifications of their decisions.

A US Circuit Appeals Court Judge makes $211,800 per year. That is a nice salary, but it won't make you rich. It is also not 1% territory, which is more than double that salary.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...in-u-s-see-25-000-more-as-salary-freeze-falls
What Does It Take to Be in the Top 1 Percent? Not As Much As You Think - U.S. Global Investors
 
Dershowitz thinks Trump will likely win the travel ban case in the Supreme Court. There are things the legislative branch could do that would make it perfectly clear to any sitting federal judge where their limits of juris prudence begins and ends on immigration while issuing a law that halts travel from certain countries and halts refugees till the government can put into place better vetting practices.

But there is some good that has come out of this. It highlights how some judges have an appalling level of hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire purpose of federal control over immigration in the first place. It's our sovereignty stupid! States have power to enforce the law on behalf of their sovereignty but not at the expense of violating national sovereignty!
 
OK. So there's issues with the EO and the temporary suspension of accepting refugees and immigrants from certain countries.
Re-write it so that the courts objections are eliminated. What's the problem?
I think this a faster means to resolving this issue than fighting it through the courts.

Of course, I guess all of these immigration bans were unconstitutional as well then?

President Barack Obama has used the authority this statute provides six times in his tenure. In July 2011, Obama barred the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.” In April of 2012, he barred the entry of anyone “facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who have sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described.”
Former President George W.Bush used this authority six times as well during his tenure, typically on government officials. In January 2004, he signed an order “barring entry for public officials who solicit or accept bribes in exchange for any act or omission in their public duties that has serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; anyone who provides or offers to provide such a bribe; any current or former public official whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with public processes has had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; or the immediate families.”
The groups Bush barred for entry included members of the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe and the Lukashenka government in Belarus.
The authority of the president to bar certain classes of aliens was used six times by former President Bill Clinton. For example, in May of 1994 Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the Haitian military, their immediate families, any major participants in the coup d’état of 1991.”
Then in January of 1998, Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the military junta in Sierra Leone, and their families.”
Former President George H.W Bush only used this executive authority once in his four years of office. When he did use it, it was actually to undo a previous executive order by President Ronald Reagan that suspended entry of officers and employees of the Nicaraguan government.
Former President Ronald Reagan used this executive authority five times while in office. In September of 1981, he barred the entry of “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.” In August of 1986, Reagan signed an order “barring entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants except in certain cases.” These “certain cases” included Cuban nationals who had applied for entry into the U.S as immediate family members and those who under law were “special immigrants.”
Former President Jimmy Carter used this executive power only once and in a way quite similar to what Trump has proposed. In April 1980, as the U.S embassy in Tehran was under terrorist control, Carter signed an order invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”


The Past Six Presidents Have All Used The Executive Power To Block Certain Classes Of Immigrants
 
No, it simply hasn't. And this isn't unconstitutional until a higher body rules on it.

You don't seem to understand how this all works.

Um...yeah, it's absolutely unconstitutional. If a circuit court legalized slavery; would that be unconstitutional?
 
I predicted this would happen. Liberal judges will abuse their power to enforce politics over the law. With the SCOTUS as it is it would be a 4 4 ruling leaving the 9th ruling in place.

Amusing you consider it an abuse of power. I consider Trump the epitome of abuse of power. He has no concept of the checks and balances of the U.S. government.
 
Um...yeah, it's absolutely unconstitutional. If a circuit court legalized slavery; would that be unconstitutional?

You really do seem confused about how are system works and how things are adjudicated.

I see you haven't yet read the ruling.

Perhaps you should consider doing so.
 
Exactly which event in the last 60 years you mention did the left start to trample the will of the people ?

The most obvious event would be the 'Immigration Act of 1965' which Lyndon Johnson & his partner in crime Ted Kennedy moved
threw congress with bold faced lies while a Harris Poll conducted at that very time revealed Americans by over a 2 to 1 margin wanted
no further immigration at all. DISGUSTING!
 
America won today? You speak for America? How are we safer today than we were with the ban?
How are we less safe today than we were in the past decade without the ban?

Here's a better question. You seem to be claiming that in order to keep America safe, we should ban that which poses danger. In 2016, according to numbers I'm reading, 54 people were killed as the result of terrorism in 2016. Conversely, over 11,000 Americans were murdered by firearms in 2015.

Is it your position then we should ban firearms in the name of keeping America safe?
 
You really do seem confused about how are system works and how things are adjudicated.

I see you haven't yet read the ruling.

Perhaps you should consider doing so.

Can a circuit court overrule a declaration of war?
 
Which liberal judges are you referring to? Please name some names.

I don't care what their names are because they are not celiberties to me

Now I suppose you are going to breathlessly inform me that two of them are establishment lapdogs appointed by bush

If so thanks for nuthin because I already know
 
Can a circuit court overrule a declaration of war?

Maybe so if congress declares war against a country that Microsoft depends on for slave labor software programmers
 
Back
Top Bottom