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.

 

9th Circuit Presses Trump Admin On Travel Ban Legality

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: face23785

The judiciary is an abject failure if they cannot point out the unlawfulness of the order, but can only refer to Trump's past statements of when he was still a private citizen. It's all nonsense, and all of it delivered by Bill Clinton appointed judges. This is crooked.

No. It isn't. Words matter.




posted on May, 18 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Words matter indeed. He proposed a Muslim ban, then he issued an order that's not a Muslim ban. His prior stance no longer matters if that's not what he tried to implement. If he wanted to ban Muslims it would take a lot more than 7 countries. It's a security issue, not a religious one, no matter how hard you want to try to be offended. It's not a Muslim ban and it's 100% Constitutional.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

This is exactly right. They keep crying that "Muslims are most affected". Pretty much any given law written in the United States disproportionately affects whites. Is that evidence the laws are racist, or just a matter of demographics? It's not only targeting Muslims, therefore it's not discrimination. I know some folks here are desperate to make it more than it is, but the facts don't agree with you.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It doesn't work that way. His words on the matter are VERY important to create the context for the ban.

It's not a Muslim ban and it's 100% Constitutional.

I think I'll believe the judges saying you are wrong over you an internet random with limited Constitutional knowledge.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: tinymind

Pretty much any given law written in the United States disproportionately affects whites.

Proof or evidence of this claim?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

It doesn't work that way. His words on the matter are VERY important to create the context for the ban.

It's not a Muslim ban and it's 100% Constitutional.

I think I'll believe the judges saying you are wrong over you an internet random with limited Constitutional knowledge.


If you paid attention to "his words" during the campaign, he said we needed to know who was coming into our country before we let them in. He did not say he wanted to make any ban a permanent policy. I am sure any "thinking" person will agree with this.
As for laws which may disproportionately effect any one group of citizens over another; I do not entirely agree with this. I will admit there are instances where one group would seem to be achieving more gains by some laws, keep in mind that these laws do "cut" both ways in the long term. It may just be a matter of making a specific interpretation of them appear to be in favor of one group over the other.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

Trust me. I paid VERY close attention to his words. You can spin this however you want, but the judges are still saying you are wrong and his discriminatory policy (that was on his campaign website WELL into his Presidency) is unconstitutional.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Words matter.

What about actions? What about facts? Do they matter?

If I rob a bank, but then swear using words that I am innocent, does that make me innocent?

If I spit in the salad bar at a restaurant and say I didn't, will you eat from it?

If I say the sky is green, does it change color?


I think I'll believe the judges saying you are wrong over you an internet random with limited Constitutional knowledge.

So you also qualify the above quoted statement by considering who said the words? Can you elucidate on what exactly qualifies words to be true based on who spoke them? For instance, what is the attribute that both the judge and Trump possess, but which posters here do not, that causes their words to be more factual than actions or actual facts?

I'm interested in how you make such distinctions...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

It doesn't work that way. His words on the matter are VERY important to create the context for the ban.

It's not a Muslim ban and it's 100% Constitutional.

I think I'll believe the judges saying you are wrong over you an internet random with limited Constitutional knowledge.


This would be true if the order followed up on his words. It doesn't. What he said doesn't override the text of the order. It's not a Muslim ban. I know how bad you want it to be one, but it's not. It's not even close. You can wish all day, it's just not one. Sorry

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're unaware of the current demographics of the United States and are unable to find them? I can't help you. if you're that uneducated and incapable.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Liberals: "Just remember Trump hates Muslims."

Trump: extends "hand of partnership" to leaders of 50+ Muslim majority countries representing over 1.5 billion Muslims.

Liberals: "Please believe us, Trump hates Muslims."

Trump: Calls the deaths of Muslims at the hands of Islamist extremists "a tragedy of epic proportions".

Liberals: "But... no, no, he hates Muslims."

I can't wait for the Supreme Court to uphold the travel ban. You have no case based in logic.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join