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 in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

500,000 deaths in Syria so far because of terrorists.



And we don't want to let in the few remaining fleeing?



Kinda long way to go, ya think?





It is. Mostly European countries and ME countries have taken them in. I think Turkey took the most I think. Saudi Arabia took a good amount. Lots of other countries. You don't want any refugees even travelling here. We;ll, your wish, for the second time, today, was DENIED.



My best friend is Syrian.

His dad, rip, was a syrian christian. Funny bastard. Just rail on Kissinger and Nixon. lol.

He wouldn't want them here either.





Where does your Syrian best friend live?


RI.



Rhode Island. Nice for him. Should we keep him or is he too dangerous?

Maybe BurgerBuddy;s best friend needs extreme vetting?



He's a citizen and very acclimated. lol.

He's a Deacon and is sad what Syria has turned into, same as me.

His daughter was just deployed to Iraq last week.

And I didn't say his dad was a refugee.



Hmm...I am still suspicious of him..




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra



A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.


You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.


Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.


No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?


I read it myself. Bleep you.


Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra



A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.


You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.


Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.


No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?


I read it myself. Bleep you.


Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.


Yeah yeah and it time for you to get back in the kitchen.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra



A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.


You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.


Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.


No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?


I read it myself. Bleep you.


Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.


Yeah yeah and it time for you to get back in the kitchen.


LOL touche!



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra

Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.


Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?



You are 100% correct.

The first EO was only partly restrained by the courts.

The pertinent parts are in effect 100%.

But we are not supposed to talk about that !!!

Now everybody will be screaming louder


here's the "old" EO with the struck out parts



The old EO is dead now.


Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra

Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.


Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?



No, both were blocked. It starts over when they are blocked.


You need to read the first EO parts that were not restrained.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

They had time to restructure the vetting just the same (6 weeks difference in the dates of the EOs).

The State Dept was doing it anyway.


edit on Mar-15-2017 by xuenchen because: shock



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra



A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.

Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.


You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.


Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.


No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?


I read it myself. Bleep you.


Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.


Yeah yeah and it time for you to get back in the kitchen.


LOL touche!

Look. im a take a step back on this. No hard feelings ok? Just been a crappy week and I just hate to see Law being mis used no matter who i s in office.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra

Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.


Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?



You are 100% correct.

The first EO was only partly restrained by the courts.

The pertinent parts are in effect 100%.

But we are not supposed to talk about that !!!

Now everybody will be screaming louder


here's the "old" EO with the struck out parts



The old EO is dead now.


Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

www.whitehouse.gov...


the new one is not moving.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra

Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.


Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?



No, both were blocked. It starts over when they are blocked.


Wasn't the first travel restriction set for 90 days in order to give the administration time to implement some type of new default immigration screening system? If so, that system can continue to be put together, regardless of what happens with the Travel Ban(s).


It was, probably to make a worse one, knowing Trump. One would think those plans stopped when the first was blocked.

What do you think the plan is? that is a little creepy. I'll bite.


The implementation of additional security/screening measures wouldn't be broadcast...for obvious reasons. I remember him (Trump) saying that the current system is "full of holes" that "bad guys" could utilize to get themselves into our country. 90 days was needed to plug those holes. Plugging those holes has nothing to do with the Executive Order(s), IMO.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
This judge was appointed by Obama, this is a purely political decision. This man should be held accountable if anyone from these countries comes in and commit crimes.


Don't forget, Obama was seen in Hawaii yesterday. Wonder if Jarett was with him..



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
TY guys for the thread. I am off to sleep soon.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: D8Tee

They had time to restructure the vetting just the same.

The State Dept was doing it anyway.


Good luck with proper vetting over in that area.
They shave off their beard and claim their neighborhood was bombed, nothing can disprove this.
The whole intent was to buy time to set up a system of safe zones over in the Middle East.
I watched the following video.
The vetting is flawed as it sits, and I doubt it can be improved.
If anyone would take the time to watch it, they would come to the same conclusion.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

well trump could use the national guard for a maximum of 90 days and use them to turn people around. See the way you do it is do not let them deboard the aircraft and go through customs. until they touch the ground they are not arrived yet.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
This judge was appointed by Obama, this is a purely political decision. This man should be held accountable if anyone from these countries comes in and commit crimes.


Do you know this man personally? You assume every judge appointed by Obama will only make political decisions on rulings? That is a pretty broad stroke.

I'm just glad Trump can't just fire him.


Do you? if not, then that's not an argument given the partisanship we've seen already. See Trump addressing Congress.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Hey cant Trump fire all obama judges if he can get the senate to approve it?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TinySickTears

President Trump cites powers granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as allowing the President to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin.


And the judicial branch comes in with a check.


Yes. Now do you see the issue with activist judges? Sigh probably not.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Hey cant Trump fire all obama judges if he can get the senate to approve it?


Yup.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: carewemust

well trump could use the national guard for a maximum of 90 days and use them to turn people around. See the way you do it is do not let them deboard the aircraft and go through customs. until they touch the ground they are not arrived yet.


That happened during the first hours of the initial Travel Ban. This one guy was turned around and sent back home. He was coming here to see his gravely ill Mother. She died 2 days later. The Mainstream Media focused on that story for 2 days straight.

I think the Protestors must have a direct connection with the Judge's forum. They didn't even bother showing up at the airports today. Maybe the judges who hate President Trump are part of a group, where they decide in advance which one will make the next travel ban null and void.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TinySickTears

President Trump cites powers granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as allowing the President to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin.


And the judicial branch comes in with a check.


Yes. Now do you see the issue with activist judges? Sigh probably not.


The Republican-controlled House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee could make it easier to fire federal judges if Trump can convince them to do it.




top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join