It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 54
89
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


Like I said before, this was on its face unconstitutional and the GWB republican judge confirmed it.
Actually no, he didn't.

He agreed with the motion that no action be carried out in response to the EO until that determination could be made.

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Denial isn't going to help you.

If it was not unconstitutional, why would he stop the EO?

You can't throw out common sense because you're a right winger? There is such a thing as reality.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


Like I said before, this was on its face unconstitutional and the GWB republican judge confirmed it.
Actually no, he didn't



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


If it was not unconstitutional, why would he stop the EO?


Because he accepted the arguments from the Washington AG. The AG presented a better case for a TRO than the government did against it.

Read all about it:

The court finds that the States have satisfied these standards and that the court should issue a TRO.

online.wsj.com...


BTW, I'm not a "right winger."
edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


Like I said before, this was on its face unconstitutional and the GWB republican judge confirmed it

No, Judge Robart did not confirm that.
And no, you cannot cross this off your list, it can be appealed.

edit on 4-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
And why do you think the AG offerred the TRO? Maybe it's because the EO was horribly unconstitutional?

1+1=2


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


If it was not unconstitutional, why would he stop the EO?


Because he accepted the arguments from the Washington AG. The AG presented a better case for a TRO than the government did against it.

Read all about it:

The court finds that the States have satisfied these standards and that the court should issue a TRO.

online.wsj.com...


BTW, I'm not a "right winger."



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha




And why do you think the AG offerred the TRO? Maybe it's because the EO was horribly unconstitutional?
Yes. The AG thinks so. I think it has problems too.
But the judge did not rule on that. He ruled on the motion for a TRO, not the constitutionality of the EO.

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


And why do you think the AG offerred the TRO? Maybe it's because the EO was horribly unconstitutional?

Thats your opinion, it remains to be determined.


(post by takuu removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


"That the Plaintiff will be likely to succeed on it's merits"..


he did not declare it unconstitutional...


He did say they have a very good case claiming the same and enough to warrant staying the order...



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
He ruled for the TRO because he felt that the plaintiffs, the State of Washington, would most likely prevail on the unconstitutionality of the EO. He would not have granted the TRO is the EO was constitutional. It's really that simple.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeekingAlpha




And why do you think the AG offerred the TRO? Maybe it's because the EO was horribly unconstitutional?
Yes. The AG thinks so. I think it has problems too.
But the judge did not rule on that. He ruled on the motion for a TRO, not the constitutionality of the EO.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

Reminds me once again that President Trump is not part of the establishment everyone loves to hate.
The knives are out on all sides.


The madness was always going to happen the moment Trump took on the main stream media head on. The left is throwing everything they have at him right now, including outright lies. Trump , for is part, is not helping himself. He has work to do on areas that actually have common appeal. He could have started there and built upon that.

It looks like he has just decided to pull no punches. One thing is for sure, the cockroaches are crawling out from under their rocks, so at least we get to see them in the light.
edit on 4/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
What is truly concerning is how Americans pick a side and stand by that side for no apparent reason instead of calling them out on supplying arms to the terrorist. The terrorist come from third world countries, it's a joke they are a threat to the planet. In fact the real threat to the planet is pollution.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


It's really that simple.

If you say so, I feel otherwise.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha




He ruled for the TRO because he felt that the plaintiffs, the State of Washington, would most likely prevail on the unconstitutionality of the EO.
Yes. He thought they had good arguments in comparison to those of the US government. That does not mean that they will win.
edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Facts vs. feelings are two different things and you need to know the difference. Feelings is what got you brainwashed to support fascism. Fact, on the other hand, keep you educated to see through the BS.


originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


It's really that simple.

If you say so, I feel otherwise.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Up next? I'm on it!
1. Ethics issues? Because Hillary was/is beyond "ethics issues"? Pay for play? By the way the "investors" are going to want a return on that "donation". (Has nothing to do with warm, fuzzy and "feelings". It's all about reality.)
2. Trump's Russian connections? Last I heard, Trump didn't sell/lease a uranium mine to Russia. But we all heard who did? (You may have been sipping a "latte" at the time...or busting their windows out. Maybe, maybe not.)
3. The raid was "planned" already. Part of that "smooth transition of power"... Just because men can't, in reality, buy Tampons for personal use just yet. Don't be disheartened. I'm sure "science" will someday find a cure for nonexistent "issues". Keep you chin up, cupcake.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Facts vs. feelings are two different things and you need to know the difference. Feelings is what got you brainwashed to support fascism. Fact, on the other hand, keep you educated to see through the BS.


originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


It's really that simple.

If you say so, I feel otherwise.


Facts, yes.
Tell me again why you posted this headline a week before the Seattle courts ruling?
You are little interested in the facts, you are interested in winning an argument.
Well you know what? You don't get to determine the outcome, the future is unknown.
Yes, Judge Robart feels the State will prevail, no that does not ensure that outcome, no matter how much you want it to.
Me, I'll try to stay informed and see how this proceeds.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
We shall see. The fed can appeal and although some parts of the EO may survive, they will strike out several parts of the EO. I can guarantee that.

The other thing I want to bring up is the fact that the federal govt. is going to spend millions on this botched EO. All for what, so that Trump can prove that he can turn a wrong into a right? If he was smart and was not trying to be a political sportsman with this EO, he should have left the vetting process that Obama introduced the same; we would have been fine.

But no, this idiot thinks running a govt. is a reality TV show so he has to stir the pot which has backfired on him. Dumb F@#k!


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeekingAlpha




He ruled for the TRO because he felt that the plaintiffs, the State of Washington, would most likely prevail on the unconstitutionality of the EO.
Yes. He thought they had good arguments in comparison to those of the US government. That does not mean that they will win.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   


I can guarantee that.

You're a bit on the delusional side to claim to have the power to see into the future.
Let me guess, you guaranteed a Clinton victory as well?

edit on 4-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join