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: 8
106
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



People who have no clue what they are talking about.

Try again.

Pretty much a sign of someone that has no argument




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
it was iranians not iraqi . and why do you have a problem with them putting the brakes on letting them in until they can be properly vetted. have you not seen the disaster merkel caused in european union by telling every one they HAD TO TAKE X AMOUNT OF REFUGEES. with no funding from european union she expected these countries to take on the burden of feeding and housing thousands of people indefinitely. a large percentage of which turned out to be thugs and radical aholes.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Phage
...large percentage of which turned out to be thugs and radical aholes.


Can you give some number references, please?

How many have they accepted and of those, how many have caused problems for Germany? My sources say that less than 2% of the refugees are troublemakers.

Do you have some hard numbers? It sounds like you're saying only a few hundred were let in after all and more than half of those caused trouble.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Xcathdra



People who have no clue what they are talking about.

Try again.

Pretty much a sign of someone that has no argument



I've made my argument and cited the sources that form the basis of it. Aside from linking to an op-ed, who demonstrates they are severely lacking in knowledge on the topic, what have you yourself offered up?

Or are you unable to make an argument and instead have to rely on people who dont know what they are talking about?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Unless the 9th rules that matter nonjusticable, as it is, in which case the matter ends right there and then with full reinstatement of the EO.

The entire 9th circuit is made up of 18 liberal judges and about 7 conservative judges.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

100% ON THE MONEY. ( I can smell counsel a mile away.
)

I was gobsmacked by Robart's order. The standing issue alone is the most significant outcome of this entire mess.

It seems certain this will go to SCOTUS and I know people assume the court will split evenly along partisan lines, but my hope is that the justices will be equally disturbed by the consequences of providing states standing against the federal government on matters the Constitution expressly delegates to the President or Congress.

If it doesn't happen, we can now expect to see states sue for nearly any act made by the executive or legislative branches of the federal government that the state deems injurious to the economic interests of its residents.

Pandora's box has been opened, in my view.

Amazing. Just amazing.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

they accepted around 1 million refugees and 200000 committed violent crime so by my calculation 1 in 5 is a possible bad apple thats just stats for germany. we all know what happened in paris. remember hillary wanted off the bat with out any vetting to let in 80000 while obama was in office luckily that fell through. who here remembers the sex assualts in colofbe last year on new years eve 2015/2016?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

It is already starting.

97 US firms, including Apple & Google, lean on Trump travel ban in court


Nearly 100 American firms, including tech giants Apple, Google and Microsoft, have filed a legal brief supporting a case challenging the so-called ‘Muslim ban’, saying the White House’s restriction “is inflicting substantial harm on US companies.”

The ‘amicus curiae’ brief, which was filed with the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco on Sunday, supports a lawsuit brought by several US States to challenge President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the country.

The 97 companies backing the brief include tech heavyweights such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Twitter, eBay, Netflix, and Uber, and also non-tech companies, including Levi Strauss and Chobani.

They argue that the executive order, which has been dubbed a “Muslim ban” by critics, hurts the American economy.


Click link for entire article...


Complete list of companies is near the end of the document,
Almost 100 US companies have joined the legal challenge against the EO ***PDF LINK amicus curiae*** to the court paperwork

If this is upheld then we might as well shred the Constitution and just appoint a board of directors to run things. We can change "citizens" to "employees" and the liberal elite as managers.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
If this is upheld then we might as well shred the Constitution


oh no, so if a EO signed by your little God-Emporer, trump is knocked back you think it is the end of civilisation as we know it....

You seem to think anything signed by your little God-Emporer should be treated like a sacred text!



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I see you once again failed to read and understand my post, let alone placing it into correct context with the post I responded to.

Take some time, read it, understand it, then get back to me.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

standing, palms up and clueless, in the middle of the room acting confused is usually considered unbecoming.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


If this is upheld then we might as well shred the Constitution and just appoint a board of directors to run things.


In case you haven't noticed, President Trump, CEO of countless corporations, has appointed a board of directors in place of a cabinet. They are mostly investment bankers. CEO Trump is attempting to do an end run around the Constitution by issuing EOs instead of submitting legislation to our elected representatives, At this rate, he will not go many more weeks before his inevitable impeachment.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The same goes for you as well. Read my post, understand it, place it into the correct context with the post I responded to, then get back to me.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

The same goes for you as well. Read my post, understand it, place it into the correct context with the post I responded to, then get back to me.


States have always sued if they don't like what was coming from the federal government. So have corporations. The justification is usually: "unacceptable financial or economic burden." That is exactly what is being argued here. Lawyers prefer to argue money, rather than morality.

Please see what Trump is doing clearly. He is arrogating all the powers of the three branches to himself. Note that in his tweets, he has taken to calling himself "the country."





Apres moi, le deluge?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

I see you once again failed to read and understand my post


I understand it, you are just upset someone dared challenge your little God-Emperor.

Obama puts out a EO, people whine about it....

Trump issues a EO, the same people claim it is the LAW and should not be challenged!



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The states and the businesses in question have NO standing. It is an immigration issue and the Constitution, law and scotus ruling are crystal clear.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

No, you dont.

your attempt to bait me wont work either.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

The states and the businesses in question have NO standing. It is an immigration issue and the Constitution, law and scotus ruling are crystal clear.


Sorry, but that is up to the courts to decide. Remember, the Dredd Scott decision was a property case, not a Constitutional one.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

The states and the businesses in question have NO standing.


You have no say in that, that is up to the courts to decide, like what happened here....



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join