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.

 

Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails following late night appeals court ruling

page: 12
106
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Yay, going to the Supreme Court. It's official.
Checks and balances boys and girls.

Federal appeals court votes unanimously


Ahhh, satisfied to see something working in the US.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: carabao

Scotus will overturn the 9ths ruling. Assuming it maes it that far. The 9ths ruling affects judge Robart initial ruling. This goes back to his court for a hearing. Judge Robart ordered both sides to present their evidence so their is the possibility he can rule for the government, overriding the 9ths ruling.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.


I mean actually literally how this so-called President is acting like a spoiled teenager. Sad!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.


I mean actually literally how this so-called President is acting like a spoiled teenager. Sad!


But, but . . . "He's shaking things up because he's not a politician".



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
*shrug* Appeal. The judge in question is a partisan hack with no grounding in the reality of the legality.


It is no longer in Robart's hands.


And that fact just solidifies what Teikiatsu said here.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's my understanding the court is acting to protect the Constitution , the EO has been deemed unconstitutional because it discriminates against people due to their religion.


How convenient that they never stated where religion was mentioned in the EO.

Because it isn't.


If this was about stopping bad hombres from entering the country why has the largest producer and supporter of them not been included on the list ?


Because the countries in the EO are part of the law passed by Obama and Congress as current/future threats.


Saudi Arabia has known links to terrorist groups but it is too politically sensitive to protect your country from them ,


Plus it wasn't in the bill passed by Obama and Congress.


there seems to be a hole in the EO that Trump chooses to ignore for personal and political reasons which to me makes the EO more of an appeal to his supporters than a genuine attempt to stop "bad guys" entering.


Plus there were only 7 countries in the bill that Obama and Congress passed.



Nobody should be above the law of the land , especially not the President who is supposed to uphold the Constitution.
The courts must have primacy.


This is a dangerous precedent. The President has constitutional discretion over immigration. If the courts say he doesn't, then who does? No one has a right to immigrate to the USA.

This ruling is partisan judicial hacktivism.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.


I mean actually literally how this so-called President is acting like a spoiled teenager. Sad!


But, but . . . "He's shaking things up because he's not a politician".


Are you guys going to come forth with facts, evidence and some sources to back them up or has ATS allowed itself to reduce itself to the likes of one or two liner name calling users such as what you would find on a site like Redit or GLP? I spit on GLP. Stop this. This is not the Mud Pit. We can do better than this. THIS IS ATS



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu





How convenient that they never stated where religion was mentioned in the EO.

Because it isn't.


Erm:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.



Because the countries in the EO are part of the law passed by Obama and Congress as current/future threats.
So what? Why not include others? You know, ones from which terrorists have been known to come from.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.


I mean actually literally how this so-called President is acting like a spoiled teenager. Sad!


But, but . . . "He's shaking things up because he's not a politician".




Yeah, really shaking things up with his all-caps rage tweets: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

I think he needs a timeout.
edit on 9-2-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu





How convenient that they never stated where religion was mentioned in the EO.

Because it isn't.


Erm:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.



Because the countries in the EO are part of the law passed by Obama and Congress as current/future threats.
So what? Why not include others? You know, ones from which terrorists have been known to come from.


Discrimination and Prioritization are two different things. There is no discrimination against practitioners of Islam, which is what people are insinuating. People who are being persecuted are allowed to go to the front of the line, if they can demonstrate their religion causes them to be persecuted.

This is existing law that has been in place since 1952, not a new facet of immigration policy created by the EO. Why would courts only suddenly find it illegal?



Because the countries in the EO are part of the law passed by Obama and Congress as current/future threats.
So what? Why not include others? You know, ones from which terrorists have been known to come from.


Who said they won't eventually do that? It's been three weeks, remember? Maybe there is a reason Trump and his administration didn't do it already.

Maybe they *gasp* realize they need to work within the framework of existing law to move his security agenda forward.
edit on 9-2-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You said:

How convenient that they never stated where religion was mentioned in the EO.

Because it isn't.
You were wrong.



This is existing law that has been in place since 1952, not a new facet of immigration policy created by the EO. Why would courts only suddenly find it illegal?
How long were Jim Crow laws in place?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's my understanding the court is acting to protect the Constitution , the EO has been deemed unconstitutional because it discriminates against people due to their religion.



Which Constitution are you referring to? Would it be the Constitution of the United States of America? And, please do show me where it has been "deemed unconstitutional".

Let me tell you a fact. Unless you are literally standing foot on the soil of the United States of America or are a citizen of the United States of America, you are not afforded the rights of the constitution of the United States of America. That's a fact.

Answer this if you don't believe me, why does the United States of America put many of its terrorist prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?

You won't answer because you got nothing.



Therefore even IF the president wanted to ban certain religious groups from entering OUR country he could do so and not violate the constitution by doing so.

FURTHERMORE, the President has constitutional law on his side as well as case law as well as well established executive powers.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Watching Trump act like an angry spoiled teenager throughout this process has not raised my respect for him. Just saying... he's pretty juvenile.


i feel the same with regards to how Democrats / left are acting to losing the election to Trump and Republicans.


I mean actually literally how this so-called President is acting like a spoiled teenager. Sad!


But, but . . . "He's shaking things up because he's not a politician".




Yeah, really shaking things up with his all-caps rage tweets: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

I think he needs a timeout.


I e mailed Trumps people today. Suggested that he writes a new EO and just goes around the court system. You find out whats wrong and why they object then rewrite a new one. Then they cant touch it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You said:

How convenient that they never stated where religion was mentioned in the EO.

Because it isn't.
You were wrong.



This is existing law that has been in place since 1952, not a new facet of immigration policy created by the EO. Why would courts only suddenly find it illegal?
How long were Jim Crow laws in place?


You see, you can only cite laws that apply to Americans and America. Do we make laws that apply to Saudi Arabians as well as Americans? Why would we?

Therefore as you pointed out the Jim Crow laws however useful, righteous, sane and logical....only apply to American citizens or people that are literally standing on American soil. Unfortunately the U.S. cannot afford to force all other countries to comply with the U.S. laws and culture and so therefore we must be tolerant of other countrie's cultures, faiths and political aspirations by not imposing our own beliefs or culture on them as we would not want them to do the same to us.

We also must be vigilant and logical when we realize that a culture from such countries is not compatible and many only seek to do us harm.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




You see, you can only cite laws that apply to Americans and America.


Here is what I replied to:

This is existing law that has been in place since 1952, not a new facet of immigration policy created by the EO.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




please do show me where it has been "deemed unconstitutional".

Trump has lost his appeal court bid to reinstate travel , again.

But they said the law stripped foreign arrivals of their rights under the Constitution.
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Alien Abduct




please do show me where it has been "deemed unconstitutional".

Trump has lost his appeal court bid to reinstate travel , again.

But they said the law stripped foreign arrivals of their rights under the Constitution.
www.bbc.co.uk...


Right foreign ARRIVALS. That would eat people that are standing on American soil. This DOES NOT apply to people in other countries NOT STANDING ON AMERICAN SOIL. The executive branch already conceded this fact. This is NOT the issue.
edit on 2/10/2017 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Trump is not happy at all. He just tweeted this morning.



Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory. Lawfare - Wikipedia




Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6m6 minutes ago More
LAWFARE: "Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the) statute." A disgraceful decision!

edit on 10-2-2017 by EchoesInTime because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
106
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join