Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

a reply to: Black_Fox

Like I said. Lying pos both of them.
Both the Bush and Clinton administration is so snipped up and criminal that the truth will at some point shock people to the core.

That does not excuse the cleptocrat currently in the WH.
Betsy Devos and Eric "blackwater" Prince, pure snipping evil, check their history and come back to me.

Ehmmm Yeah... Every evil snip is doing business with them.

a reply to: BlueAjah

If there is a terror attack it will rest squarely on Trumps shoulders for attempting to ban Muslims from entering the US. For all those saying it was not a Muslim ban, you need to get a grip, it was nothing but a Muslim ban.

I sit here and watch Trump supporters and shake my head, the guy is an idiot!

For anyone that cares to ask, yes I would gladly open my home to refugees/Muslims in need for how ever long it took for them to get on their feet.

a reply to: Grambler

An activist judge is one that seeks to create law, as opposed to interpret the Constitution.

A judge cannot create law.

If there rulings are overturned by conservative judges, it will enrage many on the left.

How is that relevant to our discussion?

The rulings would be overturned because they would be found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Or it could be because they are activist, conservative judges, which you seem to support. Maybe. Not quite sure at this point.

Does that "activist judge" conspiracy not flow both ways?

That mean that these judges would not be making law, but interpreting rather cases brought to them were within the constitution.

Because they're conservative, right?

Now if the conservative judges would do like the 9th cicuit, and become activist and seek to make law to favor their side, I would protest this.

Again, they cannot make law. They can only decide cases that have made it's way through the court system.

And it appears we have a difference in opinion of the definition of "activist".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is just an evil, non-partisan thought. . . . but it would be "something" if we had a terrorist attack from one of those countries. . . wouldn't it.

I wouldn't put it past Trump.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.
In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.

One thing leads to another. That is, this episode with the court may lead to public support of the appointee.

That person will be the "decider".

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: muse7

Foreign Nationals Do Not Have Constitutional Rights in the United States . CASE CLOSED .

Everyone has a right to due process even if they are in the country illegally.

Not enemy combatants.

a reply to: neo96

And to fix the problem Trump critics sued to stop it from being FIXED.

False. There is no restraint placed on altering the vetting process. Those portions of the EO have not been affected by the TRO.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: muse7

Foreign Nationals Do Not Have Constitutional Rights in the United States . CASE CLOSED .

Everyone has a right to due process even if they are in the country illegally.

Correct, all those who are not US citizens and not on US soil have no US Constitutional rights. If you're on US soil, illegally, you will be afforded due process under the US Constitution.

It really is that simple.

In regards to inadmissible aliens, the law says.....

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Cornell University Law School - 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

a reply to: neo96

Didn't Trump say that America isn't innocent of murder and corruption a few days ago? How would you feel if those countries or any other country banned us from traveling there because they're afraid of Americans or view us as a threat? If it's fair for us then it should be fair to any other country and we should support their decision to ban us from traveling there whether we have family living there or not, right?

originally posted by: FlyingFox

Also in the U.S.
I refer you to my post on page 5.

originally posted by: Jerseymilker
a reply to: BlueAjah

If there is a terror attack it will rest squarely on Trumps shoulders for attempting to ban Muslims from entering the US. For all those saying it was not a Muslim ban, you need to get a grip, it was nothing but a Muslim ban.

I sit here and watch Trump supporters and shake my head, the guy is an idiot!

For anyone that cares to ask, yes I would gladly open my home to refugees/Muslims in need for how ever long it took for them to get on their feet.

So wait, your argument is that by trying to stop terroism, if it now happens, its Trumps fault?

I say its you and people like yous fault. By claiming how anti muslim this halt was, you drummed up anger to the terrorists, causing the to attack.

And if Muslims are so easily prone to terrorism that a 120 halt spurred them to attack, then jeez, maybe we should keep them out of the country.

I chose to believe that most Muslims won't be driven to terror over this, and the ones that would are already terrorist. I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of Muslims that you think this will make them attack.

This is like saying "You better not try to take down the KKK! If you do, you will inspire more KKK members and an attack on you".

As far as opening your home, there are many people both Muslim and otherwise that would love to live in your house, and its not that difficult to find some of these people.

Stop discussing how great you WOULD be, and just go out and do it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.

In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.

No. It's the chance we take living in a free society.

Remember, those that give up liberty for freedom deserve neither and will lose both.

I can't believe some actually starred your post. We're not giving up liberty! We're dealing with OUTSIDERS here.

What don't you get about that?

Do you hate your fellow American so much?

a reply to: Tempter

Not only that but the quote is wrong, it's liberty for security.

a reply to: introvert

I do not support activist judges, rather they are conservative or liberal.

Most conservative judges tend to be strict constitutuionalist, that believe the document is a static document. Activist judges like Ginsburg think the document is living and changes with the time, thereby legislating from the bench.

Definition- Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law

My argument is that I feel that many of these decisions, including this one, is based more on politics than the constitution. When these type of decisions are overturned by non activist judges, I will not feel bad.

Is that clear enough?

But what about you? If you are ok celebrating this decision because its the law, so you will be ok with Roe v Wade being overturned if it happens?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: carabao
a reply to: neo96

So because there has been terrorist attacks, future terrorist attacks will be blamed on Trump antagonists.

Ok

Yeah considering the vetting process has failed.

And to fix the problem Trump critics sued to stop it from being FIXED.

You're right. And I'm having trouble getting my head around how Americans can be against America protecting us. Perhaps a Civil War IS in our not-too-distant future?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

They advised him that these countries were under a COVERT OPERATION to destabilize, Trump interpreted that as an excuse for him to initiate a ban on those countries.

Nah. Bannon knew that Obama had specified "the 7" and that could be used as a deflection. Even though there was no similarity with the scope of the EO.

Trump can’t openly even acknowledge the COVERT OPERATION but he can set his policy on it as he pleases...thereby telling us something...

In fact, Trump to me has confirmed the COVERT OPERATION is still in place with this ban.

You see since we don’t really get the real deal we have to read between the lines

a reply to: Tempter

Do you hate your fellow American so much?

Of course.

You have discovered my true intent.

a reply to: Grambler

I do not support activist judges, rather they are conservative or liberal.

Glad to hear. Your past posts indicate confusion.

Most conservative judges tend to be strict constitutuionalist, that believe the document is a static document.

Based on what criteria? Your political bias?

My argument is that I feel that many of these decisions, including this one, is based more on politics than the constitution. When these type of decisions are overturned by non activist judges, I will not feel bad.

You feel it's based on politics because of your own politics.

We're not idiots here. So let's cut the crap.

But what about you? If you are ok celebrating this decision because its the law, so you will be ok with Roe v Wade being overturned if it happens?

I support this decision because it's a win for personal freedom. Overturning Roe V Wade is not a win for personal freedom.

Lock and load. This is what was needed. The US for too long has been led around and taxed till there is nothing yet made others dependent. No after 20 years the generations of bred socialist leaders and followers are here and they do not know what to do because Trump is in office. Want to know if the system is not rigged? Real easy. Hillary is not president.

We as a nation have a chance to use Trump to fight the very system that holds our country back.

Let the left have this fight...this is round one. There will be no knock out because it is not needed. Things will run their course and the Pelosis, Warrens and Water's of the world will fade away.