• 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!

Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Redress said:
So you did not read past the clickbait headline. Well done, self ownage at its finest!
Click to expand...

I read the article I linked to, something that a few posters in this thread lack the courage and integrity to do.

It quotes the ACLU attorney directly
 
Yow. They didn't mince words. The court said Trump's order "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

*ouch*
 
"We remain unconvinced that Sec. 2(c) has more to do w national security than it does w effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban."

DAsWFbwXsAA_bBF.jpg
 
Fenton said:
Whether or not she would have made the order is irrelevent

The Judiciary applying two seperate standards is the issue..

ACLU lawyer arguing against Trumps travel ban admits it would be Constitutional under a Hillary Clinton presidency
Blog: ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it
Click to expand...
.

And your point is? As I read the article, the lawyers implication was that had Hillary done/said the same as Trump on the campaign trail, her order would have been illegal also. Actually, as someone with experience with immigration law, I was surprised that Trump's order was found unconstitutional, as my impression is that the president has great discretion in that area.

I think that Trump had to figure out how to keep a dumb campaign promise, and that was the best he could do. The same may apply to his idiocy about a border wall, there will be no wall, but some wall-like gestures that will make life difficult for some immigrants. Who knew immigration, walls and health care could be so complicated?
 
bubbabgone said:
They did the same thing as the others.
They blamed what wasn't written into the EO.
Click to expand...

On that level, Trump apparently also believes that so long as he crosses his fingers behind his back then he can lie with impunity.
 
Nickyjo said:
.

And your point is? As I read the article, the lawyers implication was that had Hillary done/said the same as Trump on the campaign trail, her order would have been illegal also. Actually, as someone with experience with immigration law, I was surprised that Trump's order was found unconstitutional, as my impression is that the president has great discretion in that area.

I think that Trump had to figure out how to keep a dumb campaign promise, and that was the best he could do. The same may apply to his idiocy about a border wall, there will be no wall, but some wall-like gestures that will make life difficult for some immigrants. Who knew immigration, walls and health care could be so complicated?
Click to expand...

The ACLU attorney argued that Trumps prior statements on the campaign trail made his order illegal.

Thats absolute bull **** and a dangerous over reach by a activist judiciary thats clearly putting ideology and party over people and the Nation

He didnt even argue the content of the order, and this is why the 4rth courts decision will be struck down.

Thank god for Gorsuch, amirght ??
 
Paperview said:
"We remain unconvinced that Sec. 2(c) has more to do w national security than it does w effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban."

DAsWFbwXsAA_bBF.jpg
Click to expand...

Clearly they didnt bother to read the order and clearly they are putting ideology and party over Country and the American people.

The fact this happened right after some lunatic targeted children and their parents in Manchester shows just how despicable the Left has become.

One of the attorneys arguing against the order said it would be Constitutional had Hillary Clinton made it
 
Fenton said:
Lol...
Im shocked !! Im sure the only thing that makes this unconstitutonal according to the 4rth is that Trump made the order.

Something tells me if HRC had made it it would have been fine.
This is unbeleivable
Click to expand...

Yeah, that must have been it :roll:
 
Fenton said:
Clearly they didnt bother to read the order and clearly they are putting ideology and party over Country and the American people.

The fact this happened right after some lunatic targeted children and their parents in Manchester shows just how despicable the Left has become.

One of the attorneys arguing against the order said it would be Constitutional had Hillary Clinton made it
Click to expand...

Ah, that explains the need for Trump's peeps to leak that name before the Brits officially released it. Thanks.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...
Im shocked !! Im sure the only thing that makes this unconstitutonal according to the 4rth is that Trump made the order.

Something tells me if HRC had made it it would have been fine.
This is unbeleivable
Click to expand...

Its just another ruling from that DAMNED Liberal Conservative 4th district.....or its the liberal medias fault!!!
 
Hicup said:
The SCOTUS will overturn this ruling. The logic used to come to their decision is pathetically political. Law had nothing to do with it.

Tim-
Click to expand...


Yes.....its the horrible conservative 4th district showing their liberal bias again.....right Tim? Doh!
 
Fenton said:
Its not Unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules thats its Unconstitutional or kicks it back to lower courts.
Click to expand...
Nope. It has been ruled unconstitutional and remains so unless SCOTUS overrules the court.
 
disneydude said:
Its just another ruling from that DAMNED Liberal Conservative 4th district.....or its the liberal medias fault!!!
Click to expand...

Can't possibly be Trump's fault. Oh no. Never. Uh-uh. Inconceivable.
 
Fenton said:
Whether or not she would have made the order is irrelevent

The Judiciary applying two seperate standards is the issue..

ACLU lawyer arguing against Trumps travel ban admits it would be Constitutional under a Hillary Clinton presidency
Blog: ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it
Click to expand...

LOL So now you are using the judgement of a ACLU lawyer as the rule of law. I never thought you guys even liked the ACLU . Now you think this guy is Supreme Court ready. I agree let's get him on the bench.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Can't possibly be Trump's fault. Oh no. Never. Uh-uh. Inconceivable.
Click to expand...

Exactly.......lets ignore that for months and months and months Don Cheeto talked about imposing a muslim ban and lets just pretend and accept his lie that this has absolutely nothing to do with a muslim ban....that way we can cry and whine about how the conservative 4th district is really an evil liberal court looking to screw emperor Cheeto over.
 
Fenton said:
The ACLU attorney argued that Trumps prior statements on the campaign trail made his order illegal.

Thats absolute bull **** and a dangerous over reach by a activist judiciary thats clearly putting ideology and party over people and the Nation

He didnt even argue the content of the order, and this is why the 4rth courts decision will be struck down.

Thank god for Gorsuch, amirght ??
Click to expand...

Ah, so it was not that Trump issued the order, but that some one who stated as a goal banning muslims, and it was not that Clinton could have issued the order, but some one whose stated purpose was not a muslim ban. So your earlier posts where intended to mislead. Dishonesty, not ignorance. Got it.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL So now you are using the judgement of a ACLU lawyer as the rule of law. I never thought you guys even liked the ACLU . Now you think this guy is Supreme Court ready. I agree let's get him on the bench.
Click to expand...

Lol...there was no rule of law here, just a dangerous level of judicial activism

And the ACLU attorney was the one that argued against Trumps order in front of this appeals court

Did you miss that or are you ignoring it ?
 
Fenton said:
Lol...there was no rule of law here, just a dangerous level of judicial activism

And the ACLU attorney was the one that argued against Trumps order in front of this appeals court

Did you miss that or are you ignoring it ?
Click to expand...

Conservatives consider upholding the Constitution to be judicial activism. That is nothing new.
 
Redress said:
Ah, so it was not that Trump issued the order, but that some one who stated as a goal banning muslims, and it was not that Clinton could have issued the order, but some one whose stated purpose was not a muslim ban. So your earlier posts where intended to mislead. Dishonesty, not ignorance. Got it.
Click to expand...

It was the ACLUs attorney arguing against the order without even addressing the content of it.

Yes, he also claimed Hillary Clintons identical order would have been constitutional

Im not misleading anyone, just posting the facts.
 
Fenton said:
It was the ACLUs attorney arguing against the order without even addressing the content of it.

Yes, he also claimed Hillary Clintons identical order would have been constitutional

Im not misleading anyone, just posting the facts.
Click to expand...

You're omitting the facts. The most important one being WHY it would have been Constitutional - the answer being that Hillary didn't run around saying she was going to target Muslims and give preferential treatment to Christians. You have nothing to blame but Trump's tendency to run his mouth about his intent to do unconstitutional things.
 
Napoleon said:
Conservatives consider upholding the Constitution to be judicial activism. That is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Silliness.....Liberals having no concept of whats Constituional and whats not....thats nothing new.

The Constitutionality of the Appeals court decision has to be decided.

That will be decided by SCOTUS, and thank God for Gorsuch.
 
Fenton said:
Lol...
Im shocked !! Im sure the only thing that makes this unconstitutonal according to the 4rth is that Trump made the order.

Something tells me if HRC had made it it would have been fine.
This is unbeleivable
Click to expand...

Well HRC could but would not have made such a freaking fiasco of it. Trump on the other hand has a proven track record of creating fiascos & vilifying Muslims.

So your sure is again, wrong.
But keep on trying.
 
Napoleon said:
You're omitting the facts. The most important one being WHY it would have been Consotutional - the answer being that Hillary didn't run around saying she was going to target Muslims and give preferential treatment to Christians. You have nothing to blame but Trump's tendency to run his mouth about his intent to do unconstitutional things.
Click to expand...

Trumps prior statements have no legal bearing, and niether would Hillarys

The content of the order is whats relevent and thats been ignored over an over by activist judges

Whys this so hard for you people to comprehend ?
 
Fenton said:
Trumps prior statements have no legal bearing, and niether would Hillarys

The content of the order is whats relevent and thats been ignored over an over by activist judges

Whys this so hard for you people to comprehend ?
Click to expand...

What you're really asking is why it's so hard for us to accept a falsehood. Intent is and has always been considered when assessing constitutionality. And your boy Gorusch isn't going to help you. The makeup of the court is such that it is still Kennedy who will cast the deciding vote in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom