Sorry Donny…no travel ban for you…
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/index.html
I actually caught the first few seconds of the video before I paused it. I laughed out loud when I saw the headline.
He managed to get a version of “many people are saying” into his ‘rebuttal.’
Good thing he has investigators already there and ready to go.
This disgraceful decision probably won’t even be upheld by the 9th Circuit; it definitely won’t be upheld by the Supreme Court if it gets that far.
This was a totally activist decision that didn’t even focus its attention on the words of the travel ban statute; it instead decided to focus on what Rudy Giuliani said during the campaign about it, which of course is not the same as the final executive version that Trump signed, but I guess the Hawaiian judge was too dense to realize it.
I was watching CNN an hour ago, even Alan Dershowitz, a liberal law professor who supported Hillary last year, realizes that Trump was acting completely within his purview, and predicted the Supreme Court would uphold it if it got that far, and that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court might even beat them to it. (Here’s the link for Dershowitz talking I found onlineHere’s the link for Dershowitz talking I found online)
Well, nobody knew Federal legal doctrine could be so complicated.
(pretend it’s just two X’s rather than three)
Your jargon sounds exactly like Trump’s. Not a good look.
Who do you think you’re convincing using words like ‘disgraceful?’ And who the hell cares what Dershowitz says? The last I looked, he’s never been a judge.
Next up: Executive Order abolishing the judicial branch.
What? Too soon?
The judge is an Obama appointee, but he was appointed as an assistant federal attorney by Bush.
Do you think it should be relevant if the creator of a bill explicitly says that it is meant as an end-run around the constitution, as a weaker version of something which is blatantly unconstitutional?
You may be exposed to Muslims. Tragic.
It wasn’t an activist decision. It was a decision made entirely within the dictates of our Constitution.
Trump is within his authority to issue executive orders, provided they are firmly rested on Constitutional law. What he fails to grasp (and you, too, apparently) is that his orders must address an actual problem.
He keeps issuing orders to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. He claims he needs to issue the orders for the purpose of protecting American citizens from terrorism. What he hasn’t done is show there is an actual threat of harm from immigrants or vetted refugees from the six or seven countries named in the orders. It’s what is going to trip him up ever time. He’s addressing a fantasy danger that exists only in his own mind (along with his clueless and evidence-free supporters) and is borne out by no factual evidence whatsoever. What’s the use of issuing orders prohibiting entry by legal immigrants or vetted refugees, when we allow 25 million tourists to visit every year? Do you honestly believe it is beyond the abilities of terrorists to enter this country through a visa waiver country with a fake passport? Trump’s orders do nothing to stop entry of terrorists. They serve only to persecute Muslims. The courts see right through his nasty, unconstitutional attempts.
His orders violate the Equal Protection Clause. His own words about issuing a “Muslim ban” during the campaign belie his true motivations in issuing the orders.
Then there’s that pesky First Amendment thing. You know; the one about Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Trump’s orders clearly express a preference for Christians over Muslims. Again, his words during the election campaign demonstrate his true intent.
These are just the start of his Constitutional headaches. You’d understand that if you were better acquainted with the Constitution. Stop parroting Fox “News” or corporate CNN talking points and start thinking for yourself. “Activist” doesn’t mean rulings you don’t like.
Also, if he was truely concerned about terrorism, then why leave out Saudi Arabia? (That’s where the 9-11 hijackers were from, for example)
Hmmm…? :dubious:
The Guardian has some fun quotes from the TRO up:
Because petrodollars.
Hawaiian judge? Does that mean when genuine white American judges get a hold of it, they’re going to reverse it?
What Ghouliani said during the campaign is quite relevant. Basically it was “if we win, we’re going to fuck over Muslims as much as we can”. So they win, get in and make two attempts to fuck over Muslims. And their defense is “Hey, we’re only going after SOME Muslims, so this is peachy keen and squeaky clean.” No, it isn’t. It wasn’t right to let SOME blacks into your restaurant, or drink from your water fountain, or go to your school. This order is based on bigotry and can be shot down on those grounds.
Apologies if this isn’t the right thread, but why do you think Tweety is pushing this travel ban? Is it solely to appeal to his most rabid base, to distract them from the fact that they aren’t going to benefit from any policy under him, but to allow them to rant over the danger of terrorists and foreigners?
Is it a distraction - just to get the media, courts, and public worked up over this one nonissue, while something else gets less attention?
Or does any legitimate, reasonable source of any political stripe feel this is needed, reasonable, and desirable?
Don’t get me wrong - I have no objection to some rational immigration reform. But I can’t fathom why he wants to commit so much to this approach.
I’ve never seen Tweety used as a nickname for Trump before. It’s generally used for Chris Matthews.
Trump and his supporters think he is Emperor. It’s fortunate we still have checks and balances. Since congress is in his pocket, the courts are the only thing standing between us and a dictatorship.
Aspenglow, good post.
So far as I can tell, in modern usage that’s exactly what it means.
The judge was probably born in Kenya, anyway. We need to see his long-form birth certificate. :rolleyes: