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.

 

It's Muslim Ban Time! DoJ Will Petition SCOTUS This Week to Hear the Case.

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Upon that decision, I expect the travel ban will be made permanent, which of course will be quite the triggering! It's going to be a fantastic month for our president and our country!


Don't be so sure. The globalists always get their way and the jury is still out as to whether Trump is controlled opposition or not (for me anyway).




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Our men and women in the military in those countries being in grave danger was averted.
The whole world saw it as a Muslim ban and extremists would look at it as an act of jihad.
But you know...trump loves war. He said so.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
AFAIK, foreign citizens who never set foot on American soil has no constitutional rights. They are not America's concern. America is not the world police. They are the responsibility of their own countries. The EO lawsuit was never about the US constitution. It was about loss of income from banning of international students from Iran who come to American universities to study engineering to make military hardware in Iran.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Well you know wrong. Rights aren't granted by our Constitution or government. Our Constitution exists to protect already given rights that we are born with. So the rights in America extend to anyone within the country or trying to enter it.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump drops tens of thousands of bombs in Syria and Iraq every year killing hundreds of thousands. Where's the US constitution to protect Syrians and Iraqis from this slaughter? You tell me. I'd like to know.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump drops tens of thousands of bombs in Syria and Iraq every year killing hundreds of thousands. Where's the US constitution to protect Syrians and Iraqis from this slaughter? You tell me. I'd like to know.

Last I checked Syria and Iraq are neither within America or constitute a group of people looking to enter the US.

But I also don't agree with waging all these wars against 3rd world militants/terrorists because we are chasing some over propagandized version of Muslims. So you are preaching to the choir here. If it were up to me, we'd scale back military operations around the world and DRASTICALLY cut military funding within the government to free up expenses for social programs and fixing our domestic issues.
edit on 3-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The nations involved with the ban do not have an adequate vetting process for potential terrorists.

How many terrorists have been refugees or immigrants again?



So you'd favor a proactive approach to fighting terrorism.



Maybe he's waiting to be attacked first.


Of course.

Basically saying, don't buy smoke detectors until the house is on fire.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
It's a nationality ban, not a Muslim ban. None of these 7 countries is completely Muslim.



Everyone one of those countries has a week government that has no criminal records and ways to identify their citizens which is very important because whom can say if the people coming over are not murdering rapists.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

There is only one Federal court, big boy. They are in different states but it's the same court. You go up through appeals. Federal courts in different states do not compete with each other so their next step can only be SCOTUS. If SCOTUS declines, game over.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Ok, well, it's not really a muslim ban now is it, but I thought I better use the lefty lingo so they could understand the reaming they're going to get this month.

This week Gorsuch will be confirmed and the DoJ will petition the supreme court to hear the travel ban PI. It will probably be heard by mid month with a ruling not long after, expect it to be heavily in favor of President Trump.

Upon that decision, I expect the travel ban will be made permanent, which of course will be quite the triggering! It's going to be a fantastic month for our president and our country!


Before or after they stop bitching about Republicans use the Nuclear Option?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Trump set the refugee quota to 0. Problem solved. Refugees is the business of the state department. Refugees is not the business of courts.
edit on 3-4-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PRSpinster

SCOTUS won't decline.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

The order of a federal court system is this:

The District Court, then the Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme court.

One can not change the order, or the rules cause they find the ruling not to their liking. Nor can then simply just change jurisdictions from one distract to another without proving that there was a problem in the first place, in which case the US Supreme court could either order a retrial, hear the case or state that it needs to be brought to another jurisdiction.

However, here is the risk of such, lets say for example that the Trump team decides to try to change Jurisdiction, what will they do if the federal district court that also covers Texas rules against them as well, then what? Now they have another court stating they are wrong and ultimately can not do what they are wanting to do.

2 courts in 2 separate districts have ruled against them. The winning move is to withdraw and get the best legal minds that is out there, that are not on the Presidents payroll, and have them help craft an executitive order, read it, get the opinion of several lawyers and judges, and then walk it through the process. However, as long as it appears to be an attack against a religion, it will not fly.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

They are not looking at 5 to 10 years ago, but within the past year, when Trump was announcing his intention to run for President. And then you have it from the man who Trump asked about such as well.

thehill.com...

So yes the intention of the man writing the order is very much suspect and can and should be looked at.

It is the same thing as say David Duke. You know David Duke, the ex Grand Wizard of a branch of the KKK. His entire political career was suspect about that, and even now it has been shown that the man has not changed his views.

This order, as I have stated before, does have some appeal and is a good idea, however, the way it is being written, and implemented is suspect if not obvious what the man is trying to do. And the other problem with this is the following: All of the countries on the Ban have never sent out any terrorist to attack the USA, but those who are not in the Ban, like Saudi Arabia, which the majority of the 9/11 Hijackers and Osama were from. So why is Saudi not on the list of banned countries, yet other countries are?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Syrians have large families. If 1 comes, 20 come, if 20 come, 2000 come, if 2000 come, 2000000 come. Before you know it, all of Syria come to America. America cannot take in all of them.

Just today, a family of nineteen people were murdered by gas in Idlib province. You see my point.

twitter.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




2 courts in 2 separate districts have ruled against them.


And one court ruled in favor of them.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Gorsuch is confirmed.www.reuters.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

it still will require centori, and there is no way of knowing how the Justices will rule or decide on such. They could refuse and make it go through every single district before coming to a decision.

The opinions of the justices that have already decided, will come into play, as it shows the opinion and legal precedence from prior decisions.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join