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.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: reldra
well i could had kept my original remark as F_ _ K but that was not nice.
Would have been better than your suggestion of Hawaii under martial law.
We did that once.
Do you have any idea when and why Hawaii was placed under martial law? I'll give you a hint, it began December 7, 1941.
Can you think of anything else significant about that date?
And you have the nerve to call others uneducated.
SMH.
originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?
originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: introvert
I'm making the statement because the case he ruled on seemed to have no merit. I guess even though I agree with the ban being stupid it isn't enough and I also need to go full anti-Trump. Not going to happen. I like rule of law free of political bias.
"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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
Did I use those buzzwords? NO, I didn't. The judge himself said it was a movement against Islam.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?
Why would you want Trump to act like an idiot on national television more???? I thought you liked him.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.
Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
Did I use those buzzwords? NO, I didn't. The judge himself said it was a movement against Islam.
That wasn't his only reason. But it certainly looks like a movement against Islam, even if ALL countries with a majority of Muslims aren't included. Trump would lose too much business.
Your post said it was a political decision. It follows the buzzwords. Did I not say sounds like? If you had used them I certainly would have quoted it.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: carewemust
I hope President Trump insults the hell out of this Hawaii judge during his 9pm (ET) interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. What would be a good one liner, for irritating the liberal idiots at CNN the most tomorrow?
Why would you want Trump to act like an idiot on national television more???? I thought you liked him.
I do! One person's idiot is another person's hero. You're old enough to know that, Reldra.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.
Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.
The ruling by the judge indicates that their ruling is based on 1st amendment protections.
Perhaps Trump's comments during the campaign have ruined his chances of enacting an effective travel ban, because he openly stated he wanted to ban Muslims. That's the same argument made last time, I believe, and it stood up.
Shot himself in the foot?
The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The first immigration order was legal and constitutional, and so is this one. What we are witnessing is unelected "so-called judges" and bureaucrats obstructing and subverting the executive branch.
Neither were constitutional. They are written poorly. Maybe Trump's Best People can try again.
The ruling by the judge indicates that their ruling is based on 1st amendment protections.
Perhaps Trump's comments during the campaign have ruined his chances of enacting an effective travel ban, because he openly stated he wanted to ban Muslims. That's the same argument made last time, I believe, and it stood up.
Shot himself in the foot?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: reldra
The judge also said this:
The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.
www.vox.com...
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: introvert
No.
The pathetic ruling cites alleged economic harm to the Hawaii tourism industry.
A reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose.
But the text of Watson’s order makes it pretty clear that he thinks the order violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause.