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.

 

Can Anti-Trump So-Called Judges Stop ALL of His Major Projects?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Does a Supreme Court judge have to die or retire to lose that job? What if Ginsberg is on life-support for 10 years? She's stubbornly onery like that.




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG




Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.


That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: theantediluvian

How does importing even one non-citizen Muslim make American citizens safer?


What?

We don't allow people into the country because it makes us safer. Does "importing" a white Christian from the UK make us safer in some way?

The questions that should be asked are is it constitutional and what are the actual effects of not allowing a group into the country for 90-days (or whatever period) in the first place? We don't do religious tests. We don't have a state religion and the state should not favor any religion over another.

As for the actual effects, as I said, it's been 40 days. We're almost half way through that 90-day period. The second attempt seems to be faring no better. Will they still be trying to get a "90-day temporary travel ban" passed 51 days from now? What would be the rationale?

Mean while, how much more safer have we been made by the repeated failed attempts to make good on an ill-conceived BS campaign promise? Do you think it's led to an environment that is more or less conducive to a goal of preventing terrorism?

It's a painfully transparent debacle.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think the real offending factor now is that, during the campaign when trump was promising to repeal and replace the ACA immediately, or build a massive wall or protect our borders from the 'terrorists', none of his "fans" ever bothered to ask follow up questions.

Trump gassed and patronized everyone he could have, and simply told them what they wanted to hear. No one actually asked him during the campaign 'HOW' is he going to repeal the ACA, what are his plans.

Or when he was talking about the border being protected from the terrorists, no one asked HOW is he going to do that.

And when he was boasting that he was going to get another country to pay for a "wall" for us, none of his mentalists cult followers stopped to actually think....

Now here we are.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SBMcG

Does a Supreme Court judge have to die or retire to lose that job? What if Ginsberg is on life-support for 10 years? She's stubbornly onery like that.



Dude -- you're cracking me up...

If Ginsburg were incapacitated or could no longer perform her Constitutional duties under Article III, she would have to DIE before she could be replaced. However, the other Justices can defer decisions on cases where that Justice's vote would have made a difference.

In Ginsburg's case, once Gorsuch is confirmed in a few weeks it won't matter. There will be 5 conservative justices.

Breyer will be next -- he's almost 79 and has health issues. Both of them were appointed by Slick Willy back in the early 1990's.

It's conceivable that Trump could have 4 picks in his first term. If that happened, the Trump Court would be around for a loooooong time.
edit on 16-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama is a failed dummy.

edit on 16-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife lost the popular vote too!



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz




And when he was boasting that he was going to get another country to pay for a "wall" for us, none of his mentalists cult followers stopped to actually think....


As for the wall, his plans were up on his website the entire campaign. Should have stopped to think, I suppose.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SBMcG




Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.


That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.


OK -- I should have been more clear...

The president can ban NON-CITIZENS for any reason.

As you've correctly stated, the Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: odzeandennz




And when he was boasting that he was going to get another country to pay for a "wall" for us, none of his mentalists cult followers stopped to actually think....


As for the wall, his plans were up on his website the entire campaign. Should have stopped to think, I suppose.


He must have put Mexico in quotes ["mexico"] i guess.
Let us know when Mexico sends the check, or when we start making cuts to fund the wall... either way.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

White Christians from Europe have been properly vetted. Most Muslims coming from Muslim countries have not.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz




He must have put Mexico in quotes ["mexico"] i guess.
Let us know when Mexico sends the check, or when we start making cuts to fund the wall... either way.


Unfortunately that's not what he meant by getting Mexico to pay for it, which is apparent by the information made available on his website since the very beginning of his campaign. I guess mentalists should have read the information instead of assuming.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Fake,weak and We the people in CAPS. Sums up the Trump rhetoric. You've been well trained.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Milehigh
Fake,weak and We the people in CAPS. Sums up the Trump rhetoric. You've been well trained.


Hilary?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SBMcG




Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.


That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.



OK -- I should have been more clear...

The president can ban NON-CITIZENS for any reason.

As you've correctly stated, the Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens.


The fact that you mention this clearly denotes that you have not done your homework in regards to the constitution.

14th Amendment : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Id say this gives illegal immigrants or non citizen more rights than in many countries.
edit on 16-3-2017 by Milehigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

The courts are using what he said to justify halting his projects.

Now imagine a judge stopping Obamacare because we didn't get to keep our doctor, it didn't save us 2,500.00 per family.

This is setting a dangerous precedent.


That isn't why it was stopped so it isn't a precedent.

It wasn't because Trump and Team said something that later proved to be inaccurate, but rather that they said things about the bill that showed it was anti-Constitutional and then tried to pretend that the ban was NOT what they had said it was, and the Judges have been calling them out on it.

Why? Because Constitution.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

The courts are using what he said to justify halting his projects.

Now imagine a judge stopping Obamacare because we didn't get to keep our doctor, it didn't save us 2,500.00 per family.

This is setting a dangerous precedent.


Yes sir!.. If these SO-CALLED judges weren't tainted, they would declare ObamaCare Illegal, because it was sold based on more LIES than Truths.



And he WAS the prez when he lied!

Pelosi was more truthful than obama. lol "Pass it to see what's in it".





posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Please show where the president does not have the right to halt immigration.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SBMcG




Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.


That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.



OK -- I should have been more clear...

The president can ban NON-CITIZENS for any reason.

As you've correctly stated, the Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens.


The fact that you mention this clearly denotes that you have not done your homework in regards to the constitution.

14th Amendment : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Id say this gives illegal immigrants or non citizen more rights than in many countries.


Yeah, I have studied and MEMORIZED the Constitution for decades... You are not even close to interpreting that passage correctly.

Foreign non-citizens do not have Constitutional rights. period. Not one.

If they did, anyone could wake up one morning and come to this country no questions asked. 500 million Chinese? No problem. They have constitutional rights.

The Constitution is clear: the President has absolute power to limit or restrict the entry of any group of people for any reason.

Personally, a "Muslim ban" doesn't bother me. We have an "illegal alien" ban. We have a "criminal alien" ban.

Again -- when this gets to the Supreme Court, the America-hating Left will lose (again, lol).
edit on 16-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama has no legacy other than failure.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Here's a decent op-ed by neoconservative David Frum of the Atlantic on your very topic.

The Dangerous Precedent Set by Judicial Attacks on Trump's Travel Ban



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
It doesn't matter if the judge is pro Trump or anti Trump.

The Judge has a duty to observe the meaning of the Constitution, and carry that out in his judgments regardless of his political leanings.

The Trump Admin. refuses to grant the rules they are legally bound to follow any relevance.

Everything is not a matter of left or right or conservative or liberal.

There are a lot of points in 180 degrees, far left and far right are only two of those points.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

What exactly does the term "person" mean to you in your personal lexicon?.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join