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: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:56 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.


I don't see "Christians" (or "Muslims" either) referred to in the EO...

Maybe it's not there.

EO in question





posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Who cares? She hides behind a bench and a robe. Just a person.



Curious...In your scenario where she is hiding? From whom?

I do not think many people understand the Judicial Branch...Our President included.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.


I don't see "Christians" (or "Muslims" either) referred to in the EO...

Maybe it's not there.

EO in question





When you cite 9-11 as justification in the EO...and NONE of the Muslim Majority countries you ban originated any of the 9-11 Terrorists...And then you give special preference to MINORITY religions in those banned countries?



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. 


After a year of calling it a Muslim Ban (Which is all admissible under intent/animus?)

Good luck there...



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I still don't see "Christians" (or "Muslims" either) referred to in the EO.




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The funny part of all of this is that the 9th coa looks like a bunch of fools, but this time they know they've been made into fools. By letting their TRO stand (not taking it to the supremes) Trump has laid their foolishness at their feet (no supreme court to cover up their activist ruling). They know it, that's why they're suddenly asking for more information and a full en banc review, they're trying to undo what they've done with their activism. It's absolutely hilarious.

I used to think Trump was an idiot, but I'm beginning to think he's a genius. There are just too many of these types of advanced moves to be coincidence.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This thread is not actually about the 9th Circuit.
edit on 2/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're right, I skimmed and didn't separate federal from 9th coa (been reading about 9th coa all morning).
But it's still funny that federal courts are asking for more evidence since trump has said he's going to rescind/replace the EO.

Despite not being relevant in this thread the 9th coa is definitely trying to cover.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:03 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.


^This ^this and ^This



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


But it's still funny that federal courts are asking for more evidence since trump has said he's going to rescind/replace the EO.
He did? I must have missed that announcement. If does, maybe he'll get it right this time.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

72 people have been arrested on terrorism charges from those countries.
Plenty of evidence



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yep, it was pretty public. see here



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I knew he had been talking about issuing a new EO.
Where's the part about rescind/replace?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're right it doesn't come right out and say that, but when he decided not to appeal it became apparent what he was going to do.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


72 people have been arrested on terrorism charges from those countries.
I wonder why the government didn't present that evidence in their appeal to the 9th. Don't you?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

He's not going to appeal? Are you sure?
Your source:

Trump's legal team still believes it will be eventually proven correct on the merits of the current executive order, administration officials tell NBC News. And they are looking into several options, including continuing the court battle as well as signing a new immigration executive order "very soon."

www.nbcnews.com...
edit on 2/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There are even some insiders talking about issuing a whole slew of EO's on the issue. That way they can't throw a blanket TRO on it they'll have to challenge each individual aspect.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

He's not appealing the TRO. They'll appeal the executive order all the way to the top, most likely.
edit on 12-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So....it's complicated. Like health care, I guess.
Wasn't that supposed to have been taken care of "in a week?"



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Phage

He's not appealing the TRO. They'll appeal the executive order all the way to the top, most likely.


Your source:

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told NBC News late Friday that "every option is on the table," including taking the current case to the Supreme Court.


What do you think "the current case" means?

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



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What's complicated? The fact that anti-trump judges are willing to stomp all over the duties of the executive in a temper tantrum?

Republicans are going to try to use HC as a way to extend their majorities in 2018. It's a bunch of BS. Just repeal the whole ACA with jan. 1 2018 enactment date. Then figure out the specifics you want to keep and replace.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join