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.

 

Donald Trump’s Tweets Come Back To Bite Him In Travel Ban Ruling

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Appeals Court ruling cites the president’s own words.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Monday upheld a block on Trump’s executive order that sought a 90-day travel ban to the U.S. for most nationals of six Muslim-majority nations and to suspend all refugee resettlement for 120 days. In doing so, the court cited one of Trump’s tweets ― and the fact that the White House acknowledged last week that they can be considered “official statements” of the administration.



he ruling said that Trump’s order “does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” It also says the order “does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries. It does not identify these nationals as contributors to active conflict or as those responsible for insecure country conditions. It does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.”


people(the courts, etc) are going to hang on everything he says.
maybe he should learn not to say so much

still going to go to the supreme court apparently...

the most interesting part to me is where it says the white house stated his tweet(s) can be considered official statements.

that was probably not a good idea
edit on 12-6-2017 by TinySickTears because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Syrian people and Iraqi people supported by Iranian people are fighting the demonic Islamic State. Trump is wrong to be so hostile to Iran. Iran is America's ally, not enemy.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Trump should ban Wahhabis from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf States and others they support and put their hate filled sectarian teachings in as evidence, then he would win.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The Supreme Court will find that words uttered "not under oath" are hearsay.




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Hardly surprising really.

Tweeting uncounseled and poorly considered personal opinion is something that a clever & prudent individual would keep private, lest of course one's DK levels are peaking.

The same can be said for a lot of posts that can be read here.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Appeals Court ruling cites the president’s own words.

people(the courts, etc) are going to hang on everything he says.
maybe he should learn not to say so much....

that was probably not a good idea


Well, they can't make up laws to suit at the drop of a hat, so it's not a matter of hanging on to.
Extract from the link,
'The President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban,’” the ruling says.'
If anyone wanted to hang on to something, they could just as easily say that because that country is so dangerous, that's why we/they want to get to feck out!
edit on 12-6-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Supreme Court will find that words uttered "not under oath" are hearsay.






Words not under oath are not hearsay if they come from the person in question.
Hearsay is when someone other than Trump says he said those words



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Supreme Court will find that words uttered "not under oath" are hearsay.





That's the same as Bannon saying he a Marxist, and nobody believing him...because they don't want to.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I would hope the Supremes will rule that non citizens in foreign countries have no constitutional rights in the United States and that non citizens have limited rights in the United States.

The holy grail would be to smack down all the lower courts and firmly state they can not reinterpret, read additional meaning in or create laws nor allow their feelings and personal opinions to interfere with the law. Farther, that the Federal, State and local legislatures are only creators of law.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

www.nationalreview.com...

The Supreme Court rarely takes cases where a lower court was simply incorrect. There usually must be some other reason for the Supreme Court to take the case, such as to correct a difference in opinion between the courts of appeals, to resolve a question that has confused or misled lower courts, or sometimes just because the case is too important to ignore. Within these boundaries, it is generally easier to convince the Supreme Court that it should take a case when the court of appeals got it wrong. That means that in general, we ought to expect the Supreme Court to reverse more often than it affirms. But as Court-watchers know, even with these qualifications, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation as a magnet for the high court’s negative attention.


The 9th Circuit Court is a goddamned joke. A real circus court, if you will. The SCOTUS will ultimately uphold Trump's ban and may well slap the 9th hard in the process, as no lower court has the power to block any action the POTUS has authorized under the guise of National Security, nor is there any precedent for those lower courts to block the action while demanding the White House prove a National Security claim. The 9th is in dangerous waters here, regardless of whether you're a Dem or a Republican, as they've broken ground on a practice that could easily upset future apple carts if the SCOTUS allows it to stand.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Trump should ban Wahhabis from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf States and others they support and put their hate filled sectarian teachings in as evidence, then he would win.

He's king of the world now?
LOL



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They are going to find the same way the lower courts did. For the constitution.

edit on 6122017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Trump should ban Wahhabis from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf States and others they support and put their hate filled sectarian teachings in as evidence, then he would win.

Can't ban a religion.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Just hope that all these illegals that come into this country set up camp right behind each and everyone of you liberal cheerleaders houses. Nothing like karma completing it's full circle. Onto the president words, first time Ever I have seen states judges telling the president what to do. What's next telling the house, Congress and the Senate as well? Crazy times indeed.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

The 9th Circuit Court is a goddamned joke. A real circus court, if you will. The SCOTUS will ultimately uphold Trump's ban and may well slap the 9th hard in the process, as no lower court has the power to block any action the POTUS has authorized under the guise of National Security, nor is there any precedent for those lower courts to block the action while demanding the White House prove a National Security claim. The 9th is in dangerous waters here, regardless of whether you're a Dem or a Republican, as they've broken ground on a practice that could easily upset future apple carts if the SCOTUS allows it to stand.

But, but, buttttt...you seem to forget that Donald is a slice short of the full loaf, should he wear sunglasses and talk like Peter Sellers, he could easily be Dr Strangelove...Oh! shiite! he does!



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

What's being lost in this discussion is the fact that the SCOTUS won't hear this as a case of "how many people hate Donald Trump." It will be heard by them to test the Constitutionality of a seated President of the United States blocking entrance into the USA to a selected group of foreigners based on a claim of National Security AND tested against precedent. 6 times they've heard selective entrance exclusion cases and 6 times they have reaffirmed the unquestioned authority of the POTUS to block entry to any group he chooses in the name of National Security.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: smurfy

6 times they've heard selective entrance exclusion cases and 6 times they have reaffirmed the unquestioned authority of the POTUS to block entry to any group he chooses in the name of National Security.


Not if he's a nutter...and I say he is.




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Trumps actions in the middle east should be a wake-up call to those ATSers who still think Trump is this anti-establishment savior. Condemning Iran and praising saudi arabia.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

...and the SCOTUS cares almost less than I do about that opinion.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Luckily none of this matters. The president absolutely has the authority for this and to use campaign rhetoric to rule for or against anything is just terrible jurisprudence.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join