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.

 

Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema has requested that the Government provide evidence that Trump's travel ban was necessary. She's not just any judge. She happens to be the judge who sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment saying, "You came here to be a martyr and to die in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, instead, you will die with a whimper. The rest of your life you will spend in prison."



The presidential order, she said, “has all kinds of defects” and “clearly is overreaching” when it comes to long-term residents of the United States. The White House has issued guidance that those residents are exempt from the ban, but that language is not actually in the order.

source

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 2/10/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What do you take of the list the White house gave Fox news? Would this not be evidence but still the judges will deem what makes it necessary or not...bugger


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: randomthoughts12

What list?
Why would the Government give a list to Fox News instead of the 9th Circuit?

edit on 2/10/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am searching now I thought I saw it on ATS. A blonde lady interviewing a white older guy with glasses saying the White house gave them this list. It baffled me as to why I asked what you took of it.

Ok well the ATS article is gone as to my history and the embedded video I can't find yet.


edit on 10-2-2017 by randomthoughts12 because: Deleted material


+17 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Who cares? She hides behind a bench and a robe. Just a person.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Is there any source to the report? As in the judges full statement via text or video?

I can't blame her for wanting more evidence but does she have the authority to stop the EO if there is nothing unconstitutional or law breaking in it?


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

One who clearly holds no truck with terrorists.
Yet another who sees that the EO is problematic on legal grounds.


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am sure that the judge will be invited to the presidents national security briefings and will seat in congress to help make and change laws.

What a joke this judges are becoming.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sorry what I saw seems to be deleted and must be fake. All I can find is stuff saying there is a list of 23 or 24 terrorist that should suffice and was givin to fox news. Now it seems as to either been retracted or fake or verifications. Could have been a list someone else compiled as to people being charged with terrorism coming in from the refugee program.

I saw it with my own eyes and had not made any opinion so was asking your take. I did learn a lesson though.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema has requested that the Government provide evidence that Trump's travel ban was necessary. She's not just any judge. She happens to be the judge who sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment saying, "You came here to be a martyr and to die in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, instead, you will die with a whimper. The rest of your life you will spend in prison."



The presidential order, she said, “has all kinds of defects” and “clearly is overreaching” when it comes to long-term residents of the United States. The White House has issued guidance that those residents are exempt from the ban, but that language is not actually in the order.

source

en.wikipedia.org...


You just provided her the evidence in your first paragraph.

Well done.

Edit- I realise France is not on the proposed banned list but what precentage of Frenchmen want to kill Americans? Now look at the percentage from the countries on "Obamas" list.

The Judge and the Left have been played again! All Trump needs now is 1 attack on home soil and both of the above will be to blame setting Trump up to impose more restrictions. Youre smarter than this Phage look at the bigger picture Trump played the Trump card again.
edit on 10-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Phage

I am sure that the judge will be invited to the presidents national security briefings and will seat in congress to help make and change laws.

What a joke this judges are becoming.



A joke because her rulings or opinions do not coincide with your political bias?

I would think we'd invite checks and balances to keep our elected officials from abusing power or acting without just cause.

Seems to me that process is now considered a liberal bias.



+3 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Snarl
One who clearly holds no truck with terrorists.
Yet another who sees that the EO is problematic on legal grounds.

She didn't sentence him to die.
If there was a problem, the court should have overturned the law. EOs emphasize parts of, or the entirety of, a law. The left has made this issue out to be a rogue Executive Action ... which it's not.

I think the whole ordeal was more about provoking the President. He didn't over-react as much of his opposition had hoped for. LOL



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

www.upi.com...


+20 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The answer "National Security" to that question has NEVER been questioned by any judge at the federal level in the history of this country... the fact that it now being questioned shows exactly what type of scum we presently have sitting on the benches.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Phage

I am searching now I thought I saw it on ATS. A blonde lady interviewing a white older guy with glasses saying the White house gave them this list. It baffled me as to why I asked what you took of it.

Ok well the ATS article is gone as to my history and the embedded video I can't find yet.



Is this what you are speaking to?




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm confused.

The 9th Circuit court has already handed down their ruling regarding lifting the stay.

Is this for the broader court case about same? Otherwise, no judge (nor anyone else for that matter) has any reason/standing to request more info.

In any event, I think the Trump admin will just let his EO die and issue a new EO to accomplish their goals.

Hopefully for their sake, they will spend a little more time crafting this one so that it avoids the issues with the previous EO and most importantly, Trump keeps his mouth shut for at least a little while before and after it's issued.

We'll see...


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

The answer "National Security" to that question has NEVER been questioned by any judge at the federal level in the history of this country... the fact that it now being questioned shows exactly what type of scum we presently have sitting on the benches.




Screw the law, it's about political ideology and feelings!

80% of the 9th circuit has been overturned by the supreme court! Anyone else see a problem but me?

Time to arrest those whom have taken an oath to uphold the law, yet choose to allow their "feelings" to supersede the oath they took!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Question: What other EO's regarding national security have been legally challenged and found it's way in front of a federal-level judge?


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
A joke because her rulings or opinions do not coincide with your political bias?

I would think we'd invite checks and balances to keep our elected officials from abusing power or acting without just cause.

Seems to me that process is now considered a liberal bias.


Courts should NEVER set precedent, period. Their job is purely to interpret the law and settle disputes over said law. In this case, they're challenging laws which have been tested repeatedly and it has been ruled that the president has ultimate authority over immigration and unquestioned authority when National Security is cited to the court... veering from that is absolutely legislating from the bench and falls outside of the legal authority of the court. If the laws are inconvenient to politics, challenge them in Congress and change them... oh, that's right, the majority of lawmakers right now don't align with the politics of those suddenly offended by immigration policies that have been enacted by virtually every prior POTUS, so they'll just bitch about it until a judge oversteps their place.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

The answer "National Security" to that question has NEVER been questioned by any judge at the federal level in the history of this country... the fact that it now being questioned shows exactly what type of scum we presently have sitting on the benches.




Screw the law, it's about political ideology and feelings!

80% of the 9th circuit has been overturned by the supreme court! Anyone else see a problem but me?

Time to arrest those whom have taken an oath to uphold the law, yet choose to allow their "feelings" to supersede the oath they took!


Actually the number I've seen about this is 86%.

Talk about a waste of time, money & effort. The 9th circuit obviously does not understand that their role is to rule on cases based on the LAW and the relevant facts of each particular case.

And BTW, the money they are wasting is OUR money. Our tax dollars at work...or not at work as seems to be the case with the 9th Circuit.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join