• 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 Trump’s third travel ban

Sad to see President Trump's attempted accomplishments blocked by the judicial system.
 
Southern Dad said:
The Republicans aren’t like the bed wetting Democrats who try, in van to block nearly every presidential appointment.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but it is interesting that not a single Republican found anything objectionable about this judge. It is certainly more telling than the fact that Obama appointed him.
 
ludin said:
yet the SCOTUS has already issued rulings on this. He is required to follow their rulings is he not?
they have issued a stay against any rulings on trumps travel restrictions.

which trump has 100% constitutional power to do.
Click to expand...

That’s only applicable to that specific case not new ones.
 
How do you vet people when their country won't give us any information or if we can't trust their information?
 
Gaius46 said:
220 or so years of legal tradition argues otherwise.

Courts have always had the job of interpreting the law. That is what they do.
Click to expand...

Argues against this judge, you mean?

Courts can't interpret the law however they please.
 
JANFU said:
Is it, then show it.
You have the link, then there is the EO, so you do the research to prove your point as I am not.
Click to expand...

There is no research involved. It's common sense and easy deduction skills.
 
apdst said:
Argues against this judge, you mean?

Courts can't interpret the law however they please.
Click to expand...

By definition we all interpret “as we please” or else we’re not interpreting but being told what something means.
 
Gaius46 said:
That’s only applicable to that specific case not new ones.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter precedent is precedent. that is why we have it.
 
ludin said:
Doesn't matter precedent is precedent. that is why we have it.
Click to expand...

This is a different EO to which new challenges were brought. Unless I'm mistaken the SC rulings apply only the EO reviewed and only to the specific issues raised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom