• 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 rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restrict[W:75]

Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

I am curious, in the ignorant partisan world who is supposed to decide?

The legislature which writes the law.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

So, in all this time since January 29 that Trump has had since needing an immediate 90 day ban to review "what's going on,"

1) Has ninety days passed?
2) Has his administration conducted a review?
3) If so, what were the revelations of that review?

This is about separation of power and judicial over step now.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

This is about separation of power and judicial over step now.

That's a post-hoc rationalization, and a particularly horse**** one at that because the initial reasons for the ban were instantly glossed over and abandoned once a judge ruled against it. If he had not been completely full of ****, he would have acknowledged that the initial ninety days had passed and would have provided a new reason for why it should be extended. He never bothered to address this.

Also, if he had not been completely full of ****, or if he had at least wanted to convey the impression that he wasn't full of ****, he would have at least conducted a review like he initially said he would.

Trump's explanations and rationalizations are good enough for his cult followers, but for anybody else not under his spell he's a laughably awful liar.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

That's a post-hoc rationalization, and a particularly horse**** one at that because the initial reasons for the ban were instantly glossed over and abandoned once a judge ruled against it.............

It became a matter of judicial overstep when the judge did so, THAT is the issue and the executive branch is protecting it's authority and that of the Congress in writing laws from this judicial overstep. The ban itself is not the issue here although once the SCOTUS rules if is within his power he will probably keep it in place if needed. This is a constitutional now. Sorry you don't get that.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

And in the absence of such laws and the presence of the EO?

With authority granted by the Congress to make such determinations. The Judiciary does not tell the President who and who cannot enter the country, the Congress grants that authority alongside the President's constitutional plenary power with foreign policy.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Regardless of which side of the DACA debate you stand on, I find this a bit interesting....

Hawaii urges U.S. top court not to lift Trump refugee ban curbs | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

Lawyers for Hawaii said it would be inappropriate for the high court to second-guess the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

Not sure if the lawyers quoted in this piece are serious, and really have no clue as to how the Judicial appeals and review system works, or are expressing wishful thinking.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

It became a matter of judicial overstep when the judge did so

Since the ban and the reason for it was a lie to begin with, I really don't care. You can base your political philosophies on lies if that's how you want to roll. I won't.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Now, we're going to see 50 y/o men and women with 74 grand children. What could go wrong?
Whatever goes wrong, it very probably won't be their fault.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Regardless of which side of the DACA debate you stand on, I find this a bit interesting....

Hawaii urges U.S. top court not to lift Trump refugee ban curbs | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters

Not sure if the lawyers quoted in this piece are serious, and really have no clue as to how the Judicial appeals and review system works, or are expressing wishful thinking.
Apparently, the high court didn't agree with them:

Supreme Court agrees with Trump administration, says some refugees can be barred for now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.393623c1359d
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Apparently, the high court didn't agree with them:

Supreme Court agrees with Trump administration, says some refugees can be barred for now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.393623c1359d

Article makes an interesting point - the time limit of the EO may run out before or shortly after any ruling by SCOTUS.

Be interesting to see what occurs.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

With authority granted by the Congress to make such determinations. The Judiciary does not tell the President who and who cannot enter the country, the Congress grants that authority alongside the President's constitutional plenary power with foreign policy.
The question was about relationships. Care to ry again?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

The question was about relationships. Care to ry again?

No need to it was explained.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Since the ban and the reason for it was a lie to begin with, I really don't care. You can base your political philosophies on lies if that's how you want to roll. I won't.

It wasn't but then if that is your opinion go discuss something else instead of caring about this. I for find those whose debate is everything I oppose is a lie quite boring.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Since the ban and the reason for it was a lie to begin with, I really don't care. You can base your political philosophies on lies if that's how you want to roll. I won't.

Was it a lie when the Obama administration identifies these 7 countries as either being incapable of or unwilling to participate in enhanced vetting procedures? Was Jen Johnson lying when he told congress there was no way to adequately vet citizens from these countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

No need to it was explained.
WTF are you babbling about? You made a stupid post, was called on it then doubled down on that stupidity.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

WTF are you babbling about? You made a stupid post, was called on it then doubled down on that stupidity.

You're the one babbling not me, try to focus and actually respond.

Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
And in the absence of such laws and the presence of the EO?

There is no absence of the law and the President makes the determination with authority granted by the Congress to make such determinations. The Judiciary does not tell the President who and who cannot enter the country, the Congress grants that authority alongside the President's constitutional plenary power with foreign policy.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

You're the one babbling not me, try to focus and actually respond.



There is no absence of the law and the President makes the determination with authority granted by the Congress to make such determinations. The Judiciary does not tell the President who and who cannot enter the country, the Congress grants that authority alongside the President's constitutional plenary power with foreign policy.
You are babbling, the topic goes further back and if you can not follow the conversation at least to dot make stupid comments.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

You are babbling, the topic goes further back and if you can not follow the conversation at least to dot make stupid comments.

OK you have nothing of substance to add here, have fun in your sandbox.

Here is where it went back to

Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic Bob View Post
Well, regardless of what you think of the ban, those ARE bona fide relationships.

Me>>That is not for the judges to define.

You>>
I am curious, in the ignorant partisan world who is supposed to decide?

Me>> The legislature which writes the law.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by prometeus
The question was about relationships. Care to ry again?



No need to it was explained.

You>>
WTF are you babbling about? You made a stupid post, was called on it then doubled down on that stupidity.

You>>
And in the absence of such laws and the presence of the EO?

Me>> There is no absence of the law and the President makes the determination with authority granted by the Congress to make such determinations. The Judiciary does not tell the President who and who cannot enter the country, the Congress grants that authority alongside the President's constitutional plenary power with foreign policy.

You>>
You are babbling, the topic goes further back and if you can not follow the conversation at least to dot make stupid comments.

So I have followed your comments completely, I have given you responses to every inquiry while you have responded to nothing and can only seem to think up sharky comments.

You know where I have left it, if you want to come out of your sandbox and actually discuss the issue let me know.
 
Last edited:
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

So I have followed your comments completely
Yea, much the same way someone is on a road with no clue where it is leading or where they are going.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Yea, much the same way someone is on a road with no clue where it is leading or where they are going.

Congratulations. You win the prize for the most posts in this thread AND the least contribution to the discussion.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Congratulations. You win the prize for the most posts in this thread AND the least contribution to the discussion.
And WTF do toy think you added with your drivel?
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

The Constitution and it's already been decided

You know what would stop these court rulings dead in their tracks? I guarantee that if information came out that more than 50% of these people trying to enter the country would vote Republican in the future, they would drop every case in a heartbeat.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

You know what would stop these court rulings dead in their tracks? I guarantee that if information came out that more than 50% of these people trying to enter the country would vote Republican in the future, they would drop every case in a heartbeat.

Hell, the Liberals would have sent five infantry divisiins to lay minefields along the border.
 
Re: Appeals court rules against Trump administration, relaxing travel ban restriction

Moderator's Warning:
Stop trading barbs instead of discussing the topic. Violators will be thread banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom