Court partly reinstates Trump travel ban, fall arguments set

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Once completed the idiot ass federal / appeals judges who ruled against the temporary ban should be removed.

I wish this was an automatic process. It damn sure should be.

originally posted by: MissCoyote
a reply to: xuenchen

No comming and going.....as a refugee...if you're a student here on a student visa thats one thing but if you're a refugee fleeing your country you shouldnt be going back. No im not an islamphobe or whatever the buzzword for it is these days. Im just saying if you're here your here.
Given all the terror attacks going on better to be safe than sorry.

There would be no refugees if the world ganged up on the whole ISIS bullcrap...but NooOOooOoo, countries just sit back eating their steaks and potatos over a glass of wine and watch and do nothing!

Everyone is too afraid of being POLITCALLY CORRECT when it comes to wars...nothing gets done and innocent people die and refugees pool into countries only to puke on the domestic with their culture to make way for an extended home.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Once completed the idiot ass federal / appeals judges who ruled against the temporary ban should be removed.

I wish this was an automatic process. It damn sure should be.

Republicans in Congress were talking about changing the law where a challenge to certain executive orders in certain areas would be required to bypass federal appeals courts and be heard directly by SCOTUS.

IE - initial challenge heard in federal district court (as it is done now).
Appeals go directly to scotus.

All in all not a bad idea.

a reply to: Snarl
Three members said the entire ban is likely to be reinstated after fall arguments. The president is empowered to protect the citizenry of The USA anyway He sees fit.. The liberal west coast courts are insane, trying to run the white house from San Francisco..

a reply to: LIverPunch

The ban will be fully reinstated or the executive order will be fully reinstated?

a reply to: Xcathdra

He meant them as one and the same thing. He meant the ban as in the EO (travel ban), not the ban as in the stay of the EO.

a reply to: xuenchen

Here's a question no-one can answer:

Since it has recently come to light that Qatar bankrolls mega-level terrorism - why are they not on the ban list, or ever have been?

It must have something to do with $$ and American politicians making lots of money by Qatar NOT being on the list.

and if you look at the political ideology of those opposing anything 'travel ban', you will notice 2 glaring truths:

1. These same politicians had no issue when Obama issued the same ban.
2. These politicians are Democrats, and their ideological agenda is to deconstruct conservative axioms.

America has 2 enemies attacking true Americans, yet they think there is only one enemy.

1. Anti-American traitorous US citizens, usually aligned with the Democratic party.
2. Radical Islamic Terrorists.

#1 is desperate to allow #2 into the US so that #2 can kill everyone who is not a #1.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Here's a question no-one can answer:

Since it has recently come to light that Qatar bankrolls mega-level terrorism - why are they not on the ban list, or ever have been?

That's an easy answer. Trump simply chose the nations that Obama himself named and targeted so as to prevent the Democrats from opposing his ban ... as they said nothing when Obama did it.

Only problem is Democrats are hypocrites and didn't care they already green lit and had no problems with this ban, they did now because .. Trump.

So since Obama did not name them, Trump did not.

Here is another truth that is very self evident to those whose eyes are open and observing what is really going on:

Any time the rule of law in the US is upheld in US courts, Democrats lose their minds.

^^pick a topic and look it up - and wait until the SCOTUS reviews the bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple - if that ruling is overturned so as to align with the Constitution, you will again see democrats go full-retard because they cannot conceptualize any interpretation of law that does not result in a win for them.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah its up there with Actors who are democrats making the asininely arrogant ignorant statement "when was the last time an actor assassinated a President".

The answer, if they knew their history, was April 1865 and the actor was John Wilkes Booth.

Since that is inconvenient for their narrative they just ignore it.

LOL - I remember all too well the liberal laughter and deflection about this tweet.

Oh sweet karma, you have delivered yet again

(NB: I've highlighted the date so you can google MSM and social media comments from around that time - see for yourself)

So it seems EU trickeries with migrants aren't gonna happen anytime soon!

a reply to: xuenchen

As much as i hate to say it,some of those places need to be on the ban thingy.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Because funding comes from their government.

It seems that liberal activists are not even interested in accepting the authority of the Supreme Court.

The same Hawaiian AG that pushed for the previous ruling at a lower court level to stop the ban, is now trying to get a court to rule that the Trump administration are violating the Supreme Court ruling by their interpretation of 'bone fide" relationships. The Trump administration are using federal immigration law classifications to interpret the Supreme Court ruling, as well as previous SC rulings, but it seems that is not good enough for Mr Chin.

Sounds a bit like he is upset at his humiliating rebuke from the SC.