Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

Actually, I think this is a judge who knows the dangers of terrorism and sees the benefits of the EO.
She is giving the government a chance to provide some concrete evidence so that she can rule in their favor and shut everyone up.
She should not need to do this. The President and the DHS get security briefings, not the judges.
But, maybe she sees that the insanity is not going to stop unless she can make a strong, irrefutable ruling to reinstate the EO.

I hope my guy instinct is correct on this one.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm just an asshole spouting off on an internet forum whereas a judge's words, opinions, and status as an ass which must always be kissed lest contempt charges be levied carry actual weight... it should be sort of a big deal that our judges' vision isn't clouded in any way by politics.

And what criteria are you using to say this judges "vision" is clouded? Because you disagree with their opinion?

You don't even understand the concept of legal precedence and yet you expect us to swallow the idea that you are bringing informed logic to this discussion that bears any merit?

a reply to: BlueAjah

She did ask for evidence, yes. Perhaps because, once again, the government didn't present any?

Oh, she also said this:

"There is strong evidence from the national security community that this order does not do what it purports to do," Brinkema said. "There is strong, colorful evidence for the motives of this order."

www.upi.com...

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: seeker1963

I still want to believe in a system of checks & balances.

Admittedly ... that is getting harder to do with all these adults behaving like drama queens.

Believe me brother, I do too.

I just don't see it possible it this point!

We have been cornered into a bubble by the elitists to the point we are at in this day and age, and we can either fight for those who gave us our freedom, which we pathetically pissed away or we can bow down in subservience.......

Our founders warned us!

a reply to: introvert

Have you tried googling "national security executive order courts" today? I slogged through a good 20 pages and even tried to search for the ones I know were challenged, like Bush's EO establihing Homeland Security and the wiretapping EO and I still get page after page after page of crap about Trump's case.

Does Google do this intentionally, or is there a setting I'm missing here?

a reply to: introvert

That is incorrect.

Umm no it's not.

As you said it's incorrect, please provide the relevant language in the constitution to back up your assertion.

It would be easy for that member to provide clear constitutional language stating that the President essentially has almost unlimited power in this regard.

ETA - www.abovetopsecret.com...

As a matter of fact - the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority regarding determining who or who should not, be allowed to enter this country.

On a side but also very important note to this discussion: non US citizens have ZERO protection under the constitution as it only applies to US citizens.

Period. End of story.

a reply to: seeker1963

Our founders warned us!

Against leaders who would try to put themselves above scrutiny? Yeah, they did.

a reply to: Phage

I see all these federal courts are intent on violating the federal constitution and supreme court ruling. Not to mention the federal court ruling in Boston that prevents parallel court actions.

originally posted by: seeker1963
We have been cornered into a bubble by the elitists to the point we are at in this day and age, and we can either fight for those who gave us our freedom, which we pathetically pissed away or we can bow down in subservience.......

Our founders warned us!

Didn't they say something about the blood of patriots and tyrants?

Last time I was at the range I didn't see anyone down there except Patriots ... and we know what happened in the Super Bowl!! Feels surreal ... coming from behind and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Does Google do this intentionally, or is there a setting I'm missing here?

Select "Tools"
Select "Any Time"
Then select an ending date before, say 11/1/16.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: introvert

Title 8 US Code Ch. 12

"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 entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."

Which part isn't clear?

Does anybody know if the word "proclamation" in the law means "in writing" as an EO ?

Or can the President just tell somebody "in words" or an internal letter ?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: seeker1963
We have been cornered into a bubble by the elitists to the point we are at in this day and age, and we can either fight for those who gave us our freedom, which we pathetically pissed away or we can bow down in subservience.......

Our founders warned us!

Didn't they say something about the blood of patriots and tyrants?

Last time I was at the range I didn't see anyone down there except Patriots ... and we know what happened in the Super Bowl!! Feels surreal ... coming from behind and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

Yea, my brother!

We see what's on the horizon!

a reply to: introvert

16 years ago...
www.nytimes.com...

In one of the nation's most conservative courthouses, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has always stood out. Not only as one of the most liberal judges on the federal court in the capital's leafy Virginia suburbs, but also as one of the least predictable in her rulings, which are often reversed on appeal for reasons that go beyond politics.

Her track record indicates her head is firmly shoved into the clouds and has been for a long, long time.

I understand that precedence isn't supposed to be taken lightly by the courts and, in fact, the higher the courts, the more loathe they have historically been to set it. It is akin to legislation from the bench.

a reply to: Phage

Federal Judges Have No Access to Security Clearances , Access Denied !

a reply to: burdman30ott6

ugh.
There goes my hope that she is going to save the day.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Riffrafter

How about this court?
en.wikipedia.org...

Or how about you wait to see how she rules before jumping the gun? All she did was ask for some evidence from the Government. Is that bad?

Here's one reason: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But more importantly, why wait? Everyone already knows the EO was rushed and flawed. Why keep the feeding frenzy going? For entertainment purposes?

Fix it and move on.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phage

Federal Judges Have No Access to Security Clearances , Access Denied !

Has the government taken that position?

No classified information was presented at the Moussaoui trial? The one she presided over?

a reply to: Riffrafter

Fix it and move on.

Our president does not like to admit he screwed up.

He really, really, really doesn't like it.

a reply to: watchitburn

Correct me if I am wrong, but that refers to aliens that are not eligible for visas.

a reply to: Phage

I recall something said about Hillary's lack of intent when it came to the e-mail server. The other side can't see the forrest for the trees when Trump puts his intent down in an EO?