The Trump Presidency

[sonofdaxjones]

Hundreds of millions of Muslims were open to go through whatever channels to immigrate or visit the US during the temporary suspension from 7 countries  = "Muslim Ban".

No winning against that kind of idiocy.

Is this like losing the Dr. Pepper in '98 Dax?

Not really.  Just having fun with the over the top meltdown, and idiot blanket statement logic, like "Muslim Ban", ya know, give or take a few hundred million Muslims

[Phil Titola]

Hundreds of millions of Muslims were open to go through whatever channels to immigrate or visit the US during the temporary suspension from 7 countries  = "Muslim Ban".

No winning against that kind of idiocy.

Is this like losing the Dr. Pepper in '98 Dax?

Not really.  Just having fun with the over the top meltdown, and idiot blanket statement logic, like "Muslim Ban", ya know, give or take a few hundred million Muslims

LOL yeah sorry, misquoted your boy...."complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States "

[sonofdaxjones]

Hundreds of millions of Muslims were open to go through whatever channels to immigrate or visit the US during the temporary suspension from 7 countries  = "Muslim Ban".

No winning against that kind of idiocy.

Is this like losing the Dr. Pepper in '98 Dax?

Not really.  Just having fun with the over the top meltdown, and idiot blanket statement logic, like "Muslim Ban", ya know, give or take a few hundred million Muslims

LOL yeah sorry, misquoted your boy...."complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States "

From a year ago? 

Weird, Libs come unhinged if you dumpster dive on actual Dem politicians holding office.

Were any sitting Libs in office calling for more strident measures, rubbing their hands and dually concerned?   Signing off on giving the executive branch more power in immigration?  Sponsoring legislation to give the executive branch more power on immigration?

[sonofdaxjones]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma

Fake News? Political ploy?

[sonofdaxjones]

 “jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

Hillary Clinton in a speech to Goldman Sachs

[sonofdaxjones]

“We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing [that will] show up, because we have no record on that person.”

James Comey testifying to Congress 2015

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

“The government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco found. “We therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”

This is from the opinion today. It is completely backwards, in that it seemingly places to burden to show the likelihood of prevailing on the merits and irreparable harm on defendant (the US), rather than properly on the party seeking the TRO. That's just wrong.

[SdK]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-syrias-assad-tells-yahoo-news-some-refugees-are-definitely-terrorists-182401926.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma

Fake News? Political ploy?

I'm sure that's legit.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The travel ban doesn't apply to citizens or even to people with work visas, so it definitely doesn't apply to "legal" immigrants.

[SdK]

I'm curious how much more unsafe the general citizen is by allowing immigrants in as opposed to banning.

Don't let's this sway the discourse. I just don't feel it would increase the likelihood of dying by violence by any nominal amount. That's why I'm pretty meh on bans in general. Living in America is great and I'm sure many others would feel that way too.

And that's just SdKs thoughts on it all.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The travel ban doesn't apply to citizens or even to people with work visas, so it definitely doesn't apply to "legal" immigrants.

It only applies to legal immigrants. Our other immigration laws in place apply to everyone else.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Looks like the EO's Constitutionality is debatable, after all.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/8298393797996339233

Not likely

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is routinely is the most overturned court in the U.S. In 2012, the Supreme Court reversed 86 percent of the rulings it reviewed from the ninth.

86% is rough ridin' insane.

[chum1]

trump hasn't done anything outrageous, let alone "unconstitutional."

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The travel ban doesn't apply to citizens or even to people with work visas, so it definitely doesn't apply to "legal" immigrants.

It only applies to legal immigrants. Our other immigration laws in place apply to everyone else.

What is a "legal immigrant"?

[Rage Against the McKee]

The travel ban doesn't apply to citizens or even to people with work visas, so it definitely doesn't apply to "legal" immigrants.

It only applies to legal immigrants. Our other immigration laws in place apply to everyone else.

What is a "legal immigrant"?

People who come to the United States with legal status.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

"Legal status"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The Supreme Court will reverse this. You can take that to the bank.

The cranks on the 9th Circuit are not capable of embarrassment at this point. It's all advocacy all the time. This lawlessness - advocates reaching their desired result regardless of express laws to the contrary - is exactly why liberalism has so tarnished our judiciary.

Politically, it's a big win for Trump. A majority of Americans support a temporary ban from these predominantly Muslim countries while we re-evaluate our vetting and immigration policy. Liberal rulings like this just drive the wedge deeper between liberals and the electoral college majority.

Practically speaking, this hopefully won't be too harmful. Yes, a few crazies may sneak through before the Supreme Court can reverse the 9th yet again, but such is the damage liberals do. In the grand scheme of things hopefully not too big a deal.

[chum1]

I wonder what happens if the Supreme Court is split 4-4.

[Phil Titola]

The Supreme Court will reverse this. You can take that to the bank.

The cranks on the 9th Circuit are not capable of embarrassment at this point. It's all advocacy all the time. This lawlessness - advocates reaching their desired result regardless of express laws to the contrary - is exactly why liberalism has so tarnished our judiciary.

Politically, it's a big win for Trump. A majority of Americans support a temporary ban from these predominantly Muslim countries while we re-evaluate our vetting and immigration policy. Liberal rulings like this just drive the wedge deeper between liberals and the electoral college majority.

Practically speaking, this hopefully won't be too harmful. Yes, a few crazies may sneak through before the Supreme Court can reverse the 9th yet again, but such is the damage liberals do. In the grand scheme of things hopefully not too big a deal.

Do a majority of Americans also support 3 branches of government?  Do you not find attacking the judiciary every time you don't get your way as dangerous?

Practically speaking there is still "extreme vetting" in place....I wouldn't worry about crazies sneaking through given the chance of it happening to you vs. a crazy US citizen doing you harm.

[renocat]

Court.killing the Constitution.

[star seed 7]

fsd taking the stance that there is no such thing as a legal immigrant... interesting tactic

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The Supreme Court will reverse this. You can take that to the bank.

The cranks on the 9th Circuit are not capable of embarrassment at this point. It's all advocacy all the time. This lawlessness - advocates reaching their desired result regardless of express laws to the contrary - is exactly why liberalism has so tarnished our judiciary.

Politically, it's a big win for Trump. A majority of Americans support a temporary ban from these predominantly Muslim countries while we re-evaluate our vetting and immigration policy. Liberal rulings like this just drive the wedge deeper between liberals and the electoral college majority.

Practically speaking, this hopefully won't be too harmful. Yes, a few crazies may sneak through before the Supreme Court can reverse the 9th yet again, but such is the damage liberals do. In the grand scheme of things hopefully not too big a deal.

Do a majority of Americans also support 3 branches of government?  Do you not find attacking the judiciary every time you don't get your way as dangerous?

Practically speaking there is still "extreme vetting" in place....I wouldn't worry about crazies sneaking through given the chance of it happening to you vs. a crazy US citizen doing you harm.

This isn't about "not getting your way," though I'm not surprised that is how you would view this. When the court is wrong, it is wrong. When it reaches a decision based on advocacy, and not the law, that is lawless. The courts should be champions of the law, not find ways around laws they don't like. Congress and the Consitition granted the Executive plennary power over immigration. Arguments that this ban somehow violates freedom of religion are both factually wrong - it is not a ban based upon religion - and legally wrong - the Free Exercise Clause, like so many consititional rights, does not apply to non-citizens - particularly on foreign soil.

These are just a few reasons this absurd ruling will be reversed, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the liberal justices join the conservative majority. They're not quite as crazy as many 9th Circuit loons. Why do you think the plaintiffs chose to bring this suit in the Ninth? This is just politics.

[SdK]

To play a home gams

[SdK]

It worked

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The Supreme Court will reverse this. You can take that to the bank.

The cranks on the 9th Circuit are not capable of embarrassment at this point. It's all advocacy all the time. This lawlessness - advocates reaching their desired result regardless of express laws to the contrary - is exactly why liberalism has so tarnished our judiciary.

Politically, it's a big win for Trump. A majority of Americans support a temporary ban from these predominantly Muslim countries while we re-evaluate our vetting and immigration policy. Liberal rulings like this just drive the wedge deeper between liberals and the electoral college majority.

Practically speaking, this hopefully won't be too harmful. Yes, a few crazies may sneak through before the Supreme Court can reverse the 9th yet again, but such is the damage liberals do. In the grand scheme of things hopefully not too big a deal.

Do a majority of Americans also support 3 branches of government?  Do you not find attacking the judiciary every time you don't get your way as dangerous?

Practically speaking there is still "extreme vetting" in place....I wouldn't worry about crazies sneaking through given the chance of it happening to you vs. a crazy US citizen doing you harm.

You realize one of the branches that can get "checked" is the judiciary, right? And the legislature passed a statute 60 years ago that expressly authorizes the president to do this. And the Supreme Court referenced by ksuw is itself a check on the judiciary?

You understand that, right? Like, you now know how stupid your post is?