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: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I got over it.
I'm looking to the future.

Yikes. We have a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants.

A new health care law, "in a week."

Oh, wait. Never mind. Turns out it's complicated.

edit on 2/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Time to impeach this judge! There is no right to evidence!

It's the President's decision to make, whether or not this was the right thing to do!


The only thing the judge can do is rule whether or not it is Constitutional.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 03:26 AM
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...


Her requests will be ignored because she will not be allowed the clearance to see such evidence and the executive branch certainly doesn't need her approval do get anything done in areas where she has no jurisdiction.

I'm pretty sure I know know what the executive branche's next move is considering they declined to take it to the supreme court, do you have a guess?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:21 AM
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.


So let me get this right. You think this judge is a "joke" because they require evidence?

Seriously? Did I just go to sleep and wake up in a totally different dystopian world?

*****BANG***** That's the sound of my head exploding.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So then how is what's happening right now happening? They stopped him. What's he gonna do about it?

He's not a king and he never gets a blank check and no he can't simply make edicts left and right and eventually someone is going to call his reason into question. He still has to have a legitimate reason to impose a ban and he needs to support that reason with facts. He hasn't. Stop thinking he's within his rights to do this just because he wants to. He can't.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So that would be a no. Ok.

Why don't you just tell those of us who don't belong to your fan club and don't bookmark evey post you make.

What law prevents a federal court from reviewing an executive order?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

Ha ha ha



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe start a thread about that .



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Isn't that what our vetting process already does?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

As it turns out this whole president thing is complicated. Maybe he'll quit.

Fingers crossed



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

This ...I bet trump also wishes it were true.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
So here I am again...at the end of a thread and I find I've been talking to myself ...



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Been there...
Its what happens when ppl find out that their ideas
might not be "all there"...



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Phage

What a joke this judges are becoming.



A joke? Because the judge asked for evidence? Maybe there isn't any, Trump is known for making things up. I think asking for evidence the travel ban was necessary is prudent. Not even partisan. We should be asking for evidence every time Trump makes a claim.
edit on 12amSun, 12 Feb 2017 09:52:41 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

One of the reasons the travel ban was unconstitutional was because it gave priority to Christians and violated the Establishment Clause.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Not my problem if people dont bother to read my posts. It gets old having to repeat posts because people refuse to read.

To answer your question , again -
The US constitution - President has total authority over Refugees. Congress has total authority over immigration (delegated to the President via immigration laws with the most recent in 2015.

A Supreme court decision that says Federal courts are to remain out of issues where the authority in question is specified by the Constitution. That ruling makes it nonjusticable under the political question doctrine.

The only area the federal courts have jurisdiction is if an affected persons civil rights are violated and only then if they are inside the US. In this instance the States cannot have their "civil rights" violated.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Sillyolme

One of the reasons the travel ban was unconstitutional was because it gave priority to Christians and violated the Establishment Clause.


Please cite the court order that says the EO is unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vroomfondel




As for intent, I hear what you are saying. If these people hang out with radical terrorists we have to assume they identify with the values and beliefs of the terrorists.

Does being from the same country constitute "hanging out?" I guess that means you hang out with neo-nazis.

If your record does not say that you hang out with neo-nazis, does that mean you do?

Those would seem to be the essence of the argument. Correct me if I am wrong.



Perhaps the phrase hanging out presents the point softly as you put it. I meant people whom have associated with known terrorists or terrorist organisations. In the absence of detailed records we can only do what we can to try to determine who is suspect and who is not. If they fit the best terrorist demographic we have, then they should be suspect. Regardless of the case we should always err on the side of safety and security.

We lock our doors at night because we don't know every single person in the neighborhood at any given time and we don't want bad people coming inside. We aren't hateful xenophobes for doing it. We are exercising common sense. And we all know what happens to the nice guy who answers a knock at the door and is met with someone saying, "My car broke down, can I use your phone?"

The same people who complain that we are stopping a 7 year old from entering the country stand by silently as a 90 year old woman has to stand while TSA disassembles her wheel chair looking for explosives at the air port. 90 year old women in wheel chairs don't fit any known terrorist demographic I am aware of. Why is one ok and the other worthy of violent demonstrations in the streets?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

It's constitutionality has not been established.
This is a call for more info.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have over thirty thousand posts. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask you to narrow that down.

I want the law that says the courts can't review any and every EO.

Or the exact section of the constitution you think states this.
You have provided your opinion and interpretation of constitutional law but you haven't actually sited any law at all.
So I'll just wait on that.
edit on 2122017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join