Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

Trump to Giuliani: Find me a way to ban Muslims legally.

Pro life tip: There isn't one.

originally posted by: Kali74
Trump to Giuliani: Find me a way to ban Muslims legally.

Pro life tip: There isn't one.

Actually no. That statement was purposely edited by NBC to make it sound that way. This is what NBC did and this is what Giuliana actually said.



More fake news BS from NBC and the trump haters are all to eager to swallow it without doing due diligence.

originally posted by: Kali74
Trump to Giuliani: Find me a way to ban Muslims legally.

Good call. They can walk it back or spin it, but that one is in the record books.

Pro life tip: There isn't one.

There's an angle. Islam could be (and should be IMNSHO) formally classified as a Theocracy. The reverse would be that Islam comes from a mosque ... as opposed to a church. LOL

Secularism might not have been the cornerstone of the Constitution, but it is a significant aspect of its foundation. Islam is so tied to the governance of those in its practice, that the argument for separating church and state could force Muslim to make a choice. From there ... it only takes leverage.

This is why I love America. You can drive BS through the parking lot, but you can't back it into a handicapped parking space and pretend you didn't notice the sign.

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

Yep. A person who took a civics class and believes that the responsibility of the judiciary is to act as a check or balance against legislative or executive overreach is a serious, constitutional issue and should be treated as such.

The fact that the executive is working through popular media to convince his supporters otherwise is the single largest constitutional crisis since Watergate.

originally posted by: Kali74
Trump to Giuliani: Find me a way to ban Muslims legally.

Pro life tip: There isn't one.

There is one. Very simple. Ban all immigrants worldwide, from everywhere. All Muslims automatically included, without being "singled out."

You can never get a better solution than that.

Remember, the Boston bomber's family came from the former Soviet Union.

There's no safe country for immigrants.

a reply to: AMPTAH

We're gonna need a bigger wall.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: watchitburn

There have been a number of laws which have been found to be Unconstitutional. Does the term "Jim Crow" ring a bell?

In the decision by the 9th Circuit, the judges provide precedent against the idea that the president's authority cannot be questioned. I know Trump doesn't like it, but it's a fact.

I don't think the two topics are comparable. At least that's my opinion as a non judge.

We'll have to see how the rulings and appeals go.

But didn't the judge rule the EO was unconstitutional? Not the law.

Wouldn't a judge need to rule the law unconstitutional the send it to the SCOTUS. Or will the EO and the law be ruled on together?

Interesting

a reply to: watchitburn

But didn't the judge rule the EO was unconstitutional? Not the law.

Neither one. The judge ruled that the States :

1) Have standing sufficient to move for the TRO.
2) Would be likely to prevail in their claims of harm.
3) Were indeed suffering harm under the terms of the EO.
4) Because of the above a TRO was justified.

Now, #2 does imply that the EO might be found to be unconstitutional however the decision did not make that determination.

Wouldn't a judge need to rule the law unconstitutional the send it to the SCOTUS.

No. The Government can now appeal the TRO to the Supreme Court.

Regarding the law in question. The Government maintained that it means that the presidential action is not subject to judicial review. Neither the judge nor the appeals court agreed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomthoughts12

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

Fox News=Only Media Friend they have

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

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

Yep. A person who took a civics class and believes that the responsibility of the judiciary is to act as a check or balance against legislative or executive overreach is a serious, constitutional issue and should be treated as such.

The fact that the executive is working through popular media to convince his supporters otherwise is the single largest constitutional crisis since Watergate.

Your pulling my leg, right? If ever two entities hated each other more ... it's Trump and the Media.

And as for the Judicial Branch of government ... a rogue faction (like the 9th) sticks out like a sore thumb. Everyone sees it. They should have picked their fights a little better.

Going at Trump early on clearly demonstrates a shortage of Wisdom. And, more so than any other part of the system of checks and balances, I expect the Judicial Branch to exercise Wisdom ... not put on some act like they're a key player in a Drama.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

What happened to that list, anyway?

a reply to: Snarl

It was my impression the reference was to social media.
I could be wrong.

Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

I want to know where these judges 'backbones' have been at for the last eight years.

Who knew that was possible.

Spontaneous backbone generation.

Now every single of them need to get to work putting TRO's on 80 years of gun regulation.

'Crickets'.

And the Affordable Care Act.

'Crickets'.

a reply to: neo96

I want to know where these judges 'backbones' have been at for the last eight years.

Perhaps you are suffering from confirmation bias.
www.azcentral.com...

www.dailywire.com...

dailycaller.com...

www.forbes.com...


Here you go. Easier:
www.google.com...

a reply to: Phage

Our president does not like to admit he screwed up.

I'm not convinced he understands that he screwed up

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Confirmation bias?

Trump?

No way.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Phage

Our president does not like to admit he screwed up.

I'm not convinced he understands that he screwed up

I'm completely not convinced Trumpster's understand that he screwed up.

a reply to: Annee

I'm completely not convinced Trumpster's understand that he screwed up.

This thread is hilarious. People who don't believe that anyone has the power to say no to their puny king. Their first best guess is that this must be a liberal conspiracy against him

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah it is hilarious.

Suddenly federal court judges are more powerful that the 'Most power man on the globe'. The President of the US.

Matters of national security. They don't rate.

Even more hilarious is the end run around congress, and the court that is actually suppose to decide matters of EOS.

a reply to: JinMI

They are questioning the need for this at all.
Trump has issued this order under the claim of an immediate threat to the US from these seven countries.
Now he has to put his money where his mouth is and show the need for this emergency action.
Since there is no history of terrorist activity within the USA from any countries on the list he's got a tall order to fill.