Donald Trump ruled an outlaw for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution

originally posted by: neo96

Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, asserting that the campaign vow to institute a "Muslim ban" violated the First Amendment.

That judge is an idiot.

It's not a muslim ban for effs sake.

It's a temporary moratorium of travel from SEVEN known terrorist states.

Oh the denial. As if Trump didn't run on a total shut down of Muslims from entering the country. As if Rudy G. didn't tell the world on Fox News that Trump asked his advice for making his Muslim ban legal right before he fired off that EO.

Deny ignorance?

a reply to: Shamrock6

For coming from a country where hundreds of thousands are slaughtered by civil war and whose governments cannot or refuse to vet refugees.

a reply to: Swills

People change. The judge cannot rule on the EO based on what Donald Trump said in the past. Many people who are racist in the past are not racist anymore. The case is about EO, not about what Donald Trump said in the past.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

Yes, the US Constitution only applies in the jurisdiction of the United States.

a reply to: neo96

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs. It treats Christian and Muslims from the same place, differently. Bias.

a reply to: Kali74

The US has always prioritized religious minorities who are persecuted. During WW2 Jews were given preference coming to the US. Nothing wrong with that.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fake news, people who have US citizenship all passed through. The others were temp detain for questions if they had visas.

originally posted by: schuyler
It tickles me when the British criticize the USA over Constitutional issues when they don't even have one.

We have the Magna Carta, which was the first historical document to recognise the rights of citizens of a kingdom, but let's not let history stand in the way of American thinking.

originally posted by: Swills

originally posted by: neo96

Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, asserting that the campaign vow to institute a "Muslim ban" violated the First Amendment.

That judge is an idiot.

It's not a muslim ban for effs sake.

It's a temporary moratorium of travel from SEVEN known terrorist states.

Oh the denial. As if Trump didn't run on a total shut down of Muslims from entering the country. As if Rudy G. didn't tell the world on Fox News that Trump asked his advice for making his Muslim ban legal right before he fired off that EO.

Deny ignorance?

Denying IGNORANCE indeed.

Cause Rudy didn't write the EO.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The judges are political activists. 84% of the 9th courts decisions get overturned by the Supreme Court. That is how bad they are.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

Source?

a reply to: masterofuniverse

Incorrect. US laws cannot biased, period.

a reply to: Shamrock6

They are refugees coming from war zones. They are not permanent residents unless they lived in the US for a while.

a reply to: Kali74

If that were the case, might as well arrest the Saudi king for religious persecution.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

The judge cannot rule on the EO based on what Donald Trump said in the past.

Yes he can, and it wasn't that long ago. It was a campaign promise, that Donald Trump has tweeted that his EO is fulfilling. It goes to intent and motive.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
Donald J. Trump

And then there's Rudy's confirmation of just exactly was Trump was going for, and how they intended to achieve his goal.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

Not only does that not even make sense, it's not even an answer lol.

I asked how they gave up something you state they never had to begin with. You spewed out some nonsense and now here we are.

Try this again: you claim they never had residency status in the first place. I asked how it is they can be forced to give up their residency status (which is a legal status, not just fancy words) if they never had it in the first place.

I'm beginning to suspect your understanding of legal terms, definitions, and meanings is a bit lacking for attempting to engage in debate on legal theory.

a reply to: windword

He or she can only rule on the EO, not what Donald Trump said in the past. People change. Their thinkings change.

a reply to: amfirst1

Nobody said anything about citizens being detained so yes, everything you just said is fake and made up.

Whiny liberals being whiny liberals. Not much to see here.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs. It treats Christian and Muslims from the same place, differently. Bias.

Spin me another tale from FAKE NEWS

If you CTRL+F this document, you won’t find the words “Christian” or “Muslim.”

www.npr.org...