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: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter



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.


That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I hope you know that the entire process of Judicial review that defines the judicial system is a set precedent by the judicial system.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: seeker1963
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!

The people are getting fed up with these a-holes. That's _exactly_ why the US Marshals Service has a protective detail on some of 'em now.


That in itself is a problem don't you think?

Instead of protecting them arrest them for treason! I know that may sound harsh, but how much farther are we willing to take this unlawfull BS?

Soros is slobbering spittle down his droopy chin at the chaos he has created! Time to refresh the tree of liberty if you ask me......

Wow! So much for due process. Forget that noise! There is liberals to imprison!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter



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.


That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.


"the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority"

Does that not sound very dictatorish?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Evidence?

Pfft...

How un-patriotic!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:25 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!


That sounds sane. Start having the judges arrested that you don't like. On top of insulting them.
Sounds a little desperate.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phage

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


Actually they can still review classified information related to court proceedings and are covered by the same confidentiality requirements.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Hillary?

She's so 2016. We have a whole new world now.


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



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter



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.


That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.


"the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority"

Does that not sound very dictatorish?


Not when placed into proper context nope.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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.



True.

We are in full agreement here.

ETA - He is the classic example of "The things you've done to get you where you are, are the things that will hold you back from making further progress".

Unfortunately, everything he does is hugely amplified. I was not a fan during the election process but I thought he represented our best hope for change from the status quo.

I still do. But I'm beginning to wonder at what cost?




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



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You know...the list In the popular thread I started, that you participated in, which was conveniently removed just before you started this damage control thread.

Out of sight, out of mind?

Ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Assuming you have had a chance to read over the responses to your OP, Phage,

Do you get the sense that "rule of law" and "checks and balances", time-honored concepts throughout the history of the United States, have become objects of scorn in the New Society, and maybe soon discarded?

What, then becomes of the principles upon which we have built the Nation, and, by extension,

The Nation?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Oh, that list.

I'll ask the same question, worded slightly differently; why would the government give a list to Fox News and not present it as evidence to the 9th Circuit?
edit on 2/10/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, you failed to include quite a bit of context from that link.



Judge Brinkema was appointed to the Moussaoui trial by the chief judge in Alexandria, Claude M. Hilton, who did not explain the reasons for the selection.

Lawyers in Northern Virginia who have appeared before Judge Brinkema speculated that Judge Hilton believed that she would conduct the trial fairly and quickly and that any guilty verdict would be easily sustained by appeals courts, regardless of how she conducted the trial.

In a trial that might otherwise threaten to become a media circus, lawyers and colleagues of Judge Brinkema predict that she will keep a tight rein on the proceedings.



In her polite, no-nonsense style, Judge Brinkema, a former prosecutor, is similar in temperament to most of the other judges on the bench in Alexandria, known as the ''rocket docket'' because of the speed with which justice is dispensed. But that is where the similarity ends with most of her colleagues in the district court and certainly with the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, the fiercely conservative appeals court that oversees Judge Brinkema and that has frequently reversed her rulings.


Wow. Your own source said that?


In legal circles, Judge Brinkema is seen as perhaps the most left-leaning judge in the Alexandria courthouse, which is surrounded by the middle-class, conservative, mostly white suburbs of Northern Virginia. The area is home to many government workers, including many employees of the nearby Pentagon.



In 1999, the conservative Family Research Council awarded her its lifetime Court Jester award for judicial activism, citing the Internet decisions. At the same time, she was roundly praised by free-speech advocates, who said that the Internet rulings were an important early blow against intrusive censorship in cyberspace. ''I was profoundly impressed by those decisions,'' said Robert M. O'Neil, a law professor at the University of Virginia. ''She offered a strong, well-reasoned First Amendment argument.''



In a hazardous-driving case in 1996, Judge Brinkema was so horrified by the defendant's fatal, 70-mile-per-hour driving duel on a local highway that she bypassed federal sentencing guidelines and sentenced him to more than 10 years in prison -- triple the recommended sentence under the guidelines. The punishment was initially rejected by the circuit court, which said that Judge Brinkema had failed to explain adequately why she had overridden the guidelines, but it was upheld after she imposed the same sentence a second time, this time with a fuller explanation.


Don't post headlines or the first paragraph. Post the context in-full the best you can.
edit on 10-2-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter



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.


That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.


"the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority"

Does that not sound very dictatorish?


Indeed it does, but it is not entirely true.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

The president sure doesn't like the fact that the system is set up precisely in a way to prevent him (and any one else) from being placed above judicial review.

No, the system is not going to go away.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

and the 9th circuit refuses to acknowledge the constitution and supreme court ruling that makes foreign policy and national security directives unreviawable by the courts as its a direct violation of separation of powers.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Are you blaming Phage, a non-moderator, for your thread being removed?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Are you blaming Phage, a non-moderator, for your thread being removed?


No. I think he was beating his chest about how popular his thread was and trying to use an appeal to the majority to solidify his point, rather than using rational, logical discourse.

But I could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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?


She has no authority period in matters of immigration or national security.

The judicial system has no standing in either of those matters and it has already been decided in the Supreme court in 1948.

This is all Liberal posturing.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join