• 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!

Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban

Fishking said:
Who are you?
Click to expand...

A person who doesn't think banning entire countries from the U.S. is a constructive action.

Trump's approval rating continues to plummet. Only a minority support him and this kind of crap.
 
Fishking said:
No...just being a ****ty judge stepping outside of their lane.
Click to expand...

The judge went to Harvard for college and went to Harvard Law School. Most likely, not a ****ty judge.
 
Verax said:
Apparently Trump didn't get the memo the first time. This isn't who we are.
Click to expand...

We're a country with no border controls or checks on who comes in? That makes us unique in the world, and weaker for it.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Guess the federal courts/judge's are going to decide our immigration policy from now on!
Click to expand...

No, they're going to do what they've always done: rule on the constitutionality and legality of the parts of immigration that are brought before their courts.
 
Greenbeard said:
Wasn't the argument that a "temporary" 90-day Muslim (er, travel) ban was needed so Trump could develop some sort of new screening procedures?

That was 47 days ago. How is the development of those coming along?
Click to expand...

We're halfway through the crisis, if only we can muster on another 43 days we'll all be safe.

/sarcasm
 
ModerateGOP said:
I'm very scared about what Trump might do next. This is two strikes for him. He's not used to losing so publicly.
Click to expand...

He is about to go live in front of a friendly audience. Waiting for that one. I am sure he is pissed
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Guess the federal courts/judge's are going to decide our immigration policy from now on!
Click to expand...

Well, no. Not even remotely. We are however a nation of laws, and expect every one, from the top down, to follow those laws. That is why we have courts...
 
62591396.jpg
 
JANFU said:
He is about to go live in front of a friendly audience. Waiting for that one. I am sure he is pissed
Click to expand...

If he starts taking away the rights of Judges and the right has been talking about this for some time now. He will have officially entered Dictator-mode. There's apparently a vast left wing conspiracy among judges to take away conservative people's rights.
 
Renae said:
We're a country with no border controls or checks on who comes in? That makes us unique in the world, and weaker for it.
Click to expand...

Fear not, before Trump came along believe it or not... we were screening people through a very exhaustive process to do everything we can to keep the baddies out.
 
Renae said:
We're a country with no border controls or checks on who comes in? That makes us unique in the world, and weaker for it.
Click to expand...

What is this, kneejerk overreaction and mindless hyperbole day? We have lots of border controls and checks on who comes in.
 
BWAHAHAHAHA...such leadership.


Travel Ban...bombs twice

TrumpCare is dead in the water...


maxresdefault.jpg
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, they're going to do what they've always done: rule on the constitutionality and legality of the parts of immigration that are brought before their courts.
Click to expand...

They stopped the travel order.... they are running our immigration policy now. They know better than the executive branch. The case could have gone to court with out interference from the court.
They are not ruling on the constitutionally or the legality now.
 
The left is taking a dangerous gamble with little to gain imo.

They should of voiced their obje tion to the ban and left it at that.

If there is a national tragedy committed by someone that was allowed to enter that Trump tried to block, public sentiment will not look favorably on the left.

If there is no attacks they gain little from that because trump will claim that he kept us safe.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
Well, no. Not even remotely. We are however a nation of laws, and expect every one, from the top down, to follow those laws. That is why we have courts...
Click to expand...

That is exactly what they are doing!
 
Redress said:
That is not what the judge said. He ruled that plaintiffs and the state have standing, about some concept of ripeness that one of our more legally knowledgeable people will hopefully explain, and that there was sufficient likelihood that it would be determined in court that the order was "issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion".
Click to expand...

The old order had religion, I guess, but this one does not.

A quote from the AP article:

The judge spent much of the Wednesday hearing grilling the lawyers about two seemingly conflicting federal laws on immigration -

one which gives the president the authority to keep any class of aliens out of the country, This is presumably the administration's voice.
and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas. This is presumable Hawaii's voice.
Click to expand...

The bold are my comments.
"Any class of aliens" certainly includes nationality.

The other comment:
Congress later clarified the law to say the government can't discriminate on the basis of nationality any more than it could bar people based on their race.
Click to expand...
as not been tested in court. A president can argue that congress is interfering with executive power.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
That is exactly what they are doing!
Click to expand...

No, actually they are not. They are putting a hold on enforcement of an executive order since there is a distinct chance that the order will be found to violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. Do you somehow think presidents should be free to violate the constitution?
 
trouble13 said:
The left is taking a dangerous gamble with little to gain imo.

They should of voiced their obje tion to the ban and left it at that.

If there is a national tragedy committed by someone that was allowed to enter that Trump tried to block, public sentiment will not look favorably on the left.

If there is no attacks they gain little from that because trump will claim that he kept us safe.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Upholding the constitution and due process is a dangerous gamble? Are you sure you want to go there?
 
Verax said:
Apparently Trump didn't get the memo the first time. This isn't who we are.
Click to expand...

Judicial activism isnt who we are, its unconstitutional.
 
Fearandloathing said:
How?

Cite the correct sections of the law, the constitution that in any way show a judge has overstepped.

Based on what the Trump team and it's groupies have been saying, this post is 100% ****.

Now, should the Trump crowd quit lying :lamo:lamo:lamo then we may be able to engage in a debate about civil rights in the United States...until then what Trump and his dogs say is for entertainment purposes only.
Click to expand...

You are talking California's 9th Circuit here. You aren't talking about the sharpest knives in the drawer.
 
JANFU said:
Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban - CNNPolitics.com


Update- This ruling is nation wide
Well the proverbial crap is sure to it the fan

Thoughts are????
Click to expand...

Did I read that right, the ban would harm the tourism industry as well as the ability to recruit foreign workers? Is that the reason the judge in Hawaii banned the ban? Looking out for Hawaii's tourist and not worrying about whether the ban was legal or not. Interesting.
 
chuckiechan said:
The old order had religion, I guess, but this one does not.

A quote from the AP article:



The bold are my comments.
"Any class of aliens" certainly includes nationality.

The other comment: as not been tested in court. A president can argue that congress is interfering with executive power.
Click to expand...

See, One of us has read the ruling(that would be me), and one of us has not(that would be you). Here it is for your viewing pleasure: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000

Allow me to quote from what the judge actually said, not what was argued in court, not what some one not the judge thinks about it, but the actual, honest to god ruling:

The Court turns to whether Plaintiffs sufficiently establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their Count I claim that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom