ExpertLaw.com Forums

How Will Trump's Travel Ban Work

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 02-09-2017, 02:10 PM
    riffwraith
    How Will Trump's Travel Ban Work
    Hi :)

    Hope this is ok to post this. I am not in need of assistance here, but was wondering if someone can set me straight on the law, and how things work in the judicial system. And assuming this thread is ok, please let's not turn this into a political discussion, and debate whether the President is right or wrong from a moral perspective; I am inquiring to satisfy my curiosity about the law and the courts.

    I have not read the exec. order, but I have read the law dealing with immigration, which seems to suggest that the exec. order is legal. USC 1182 sec. (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President - seems to suggest that the President may suspend entry to this country of anyone, if he feels such entry would be detrimental to the interests of the USA.

    Plus, there is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 which allows the President to place a temporary restriction on immigration based on country of origin, which further seems to support the President's authority here.

    So, I question what grounds any judge has to stay the ban - if the judge's job is to uphold the law, and not to create new law nor to ignore laws that he/she does not like, why then is this so complicated? It would seem (to me, a lay person), that the judge would look at those laws, and say, "well, this is what the law says!" And that would be it. But obviously not. What am I missing here?

    Thanks in advance.
  • 02-09-2017, 02:31 PM
    eerelations
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    What you're missing here is the evidence the judges have.

    The judges have what is apparently solid evidence that the ban is in reality based on religious grounds, and not on country of origin. The evidence apparently shows very clearly that the "country of origin" bit is simply a means to disguise the apparent fact that the ban is really based on religious grounds. If the evidence proves that the ban is based on religious grounds, then the ban is illegal. Until we know how strong the evidence is (and judges are right now looking into it as we speak), we really have no idea whether or not Trump's ban is legal or illegal. Nor can we speculate, as we have not seen the evidence ourselves.
  • 02-09-2017, 02:37 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting riffwraith
    View Post
    Hi :)

    Hope this is ok to post this. I am not in need of assistance here, but was wondering if someone can set me straight on the law, and how things work in the judicial system. And assuming this thread is ok, please let's not turn this into a political discussion, and debate whether the President is right or wrong from a moral perspective; I am inquiring to satisfy my curiosity about the law and the courts.

    I have not read the exec. order, but I have read the law dealing with immigration, which seems to suggest that the exec. order is legal. USC 1182 sec. (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President - seems to suggest that the President may suspend entry to this country of anyone, if he feels such entry would be detrimental to the interests of the USA.

    Plus, there is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 which allows the President to place a temporary restriction on immigration based on country of origin, which further seems to support the President's authority here.

    So, I question what grounds any judge has to stay the ban - if the judge's job is to uphold the law, and not to create new law nor to ignore laws that he/she does not like, why then is this so complicated? It would seem (to me, a lay person), that the judge would look at those laws, and say, "well, this is what the law says!" And that would be it. But obviously not. What am I missing here?

    Thanks in advance.


    Read this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/opinio...enany-opinion/

    Welp, round #3 looks like it's about to begin after 9th Circuit rules unanimously against the DOJ.

    full text of decision

    (apologies for the CNN link; the news channels are the only places I can find the whole decision this early on)
  • 02-09-2017, 05:19 PM
    eerelations
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    The three judges have just announced they are allowing the retraining order on the ban to remain. In other words, the ban is still illegal in the eyes of the judiciary. (This may change at some point in the future, but for now, this is what it is.)
  • 02-13-2017, 09:56 PM
    riffwraith
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Thanks for the replies.

    So, it appears as tho the exec. order banned people who already have visas, and who already have been vetted. So, my Q is how could the President and those he worked with the order on make such a faux pas? Theoretical Q really, but if that is in fact the case, that changed my opinion of the court's decision.
  • 02-14-2017, 06:41 AM
    free9man
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting riffwraith
    View Post
    So, my Q is how could the President and those he worked with the order on make such a faux pas?

    Because he, and those he chooses to surround himself with and take counsel from, have no f'ing clue how government nor silly things like the law work.

    Had he spoken to even the people responsible for carrying this order out prior to issuing it, he would have known he was in the wrong. I don't think that would have stopped him but he would have at least been on notice.
  • 02-14-2017, 06:55 AM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    The decision of the 9th Circuit was a political decision where they parsed the executive order to fit their political needs. It was not based on the law although plenty of law was cited. It was wrong on standing, it was wrong on religion, it was wrong on a travel ban.

    When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.
  • 02-14-2017, 06:59 AM
    free9man
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.

    I think judges know a little bit more about the law than you do bud.
  • 02-14-2017, 07:05 AM
    llworking
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The decision of the 9th Circuit was a political decision where they parsed the executive order to fit their political needs. It was not based on the law although plenty of law was cited. It was wrong on standing, it was wrong on religion, it was wrong on a travel ban.

    When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.

    Bud, even people with green cards were being denied entry, as well as people who were already vetted. There was nothing political about the decision at all.
  • 02-14-2017, 07:08 AM
    flyingron
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The decision of the 9th Circuit was a political decision where they parsed the executive order to fit their political needs. It was not based on the law although plenty of law was cited. It was wrong on standing, it was wrong on religion, it was wrong on a travel ban.

    When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.

    And you have no f'ing clue what you're talking abouit. The ninth circuit didn't say what you allege nor apparently were the politically motivated (by the way they were Republican appointees).

    What they ruled was there was inndeed standing and reviewability. Trump's arguments were pretty farcical especially on the last argument.

    What they have stated is that there's a likelihood that the states will prevail in their case and the impacts of upholding the injunction far outweight the impact of releasing it.
    Note, in analyzing the likelihood of success, the first Constitutional issue they held up is the DUE PROCESS clause. It's pretty apparent that there's not only no due process BEFORE the action was taken, this is even being denied AFTERWARDS. After acknowledging that issue, they address the religious discrimination issue which is with two parts. The first is the assertion that the ban specifically targets Muslims. This one perhaps is arguable since while the countries listed are predomiently muslim, there are many other countries (middle east and elsewhere in the world) that are predominently muslim and not affected. The thing that damn's Trump here is his own public rhetoric in which he states to ban muslim entry. Note that the "motivation" can determine constitutionality even if the effect is not all encompassing.

    So the 9th circuit DESPITE YOUR PROTESTATIONS has not ruled the ban is unconstitutional.

    It just has ruled that it's not clearly constitutional to the point that would justify removing the stay, weighed against the impact against the affected parties if it were indeed found unconstitutional.

    You can read it here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf
  • 02-14-2017, 07:09 AM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    I agree with you. I take the law as a strict constructionist. They also know how to twist the ruling to accomplish their agenda. Let's not rule on the constitutional questions about executive powers.

    This was responding to freeman but I will just disagree with you Ron and you LL. No one is going to change their minds. You are both anti-Trump and that is all I need to know.
  • 02-14-2017, 07:25 AM
    Jeeper99
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Here's my question - according to SCOTUS archives, the 9th Circuit has 79% of its decisions over turned. The 6th and 11th Circuits have 85% (or more) of their decisions over turned. Does that suggest that 'bad law' is being practiced in these Circuit courts? The rest of the Circuits all have reversal rates around half (or less).
  • 02-14-2017, 07:28 AM
    flyingron
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I agree with you. I take the law as a strict constructionist. They also know how to twist the ruling to accomplish their agenda. Let's not rule on the constitutional questions about executive powers.

    This was responding to freeman but I will just disagree with you Ron and you LL. No one is going to change their minds. You are both anti-Trump and that is all I need to know.

    Nothing anti-trump in what I said. I directly read what the 9th circuit actually said. It's a dispassionate read on the case. The 9th circuit didn't rule at all on the constituationality. It just says that the Federal government's case is not apparenlty a sure win. The procedural issues (that the state have no standing to sue or that EO's aren't judiciarlly reviewable) were pretty obviously dismissed out of hand. They think the Constituationality points aren't sure wins for the Feds either, so then they have to decide whehter the injunction is with merit. Since there's much more harm in repealing it than retaining it, they have to keep it.

    Either way the 9th decided, this isn't the end of it anyhow. The decision is only on whether the ban would be stayed while the case proceeds through the court.

    People can throw all the rhetoric at it they want, but it's reading too much into it to claim that this is a WIN or LOSS for either side. It just gives some comfort for the anti-Trump side in the short term.
  • 02-14-2017, 07:44 AM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    The 9th circuit didn't rule at all on the constitutionality. It just says that the Federal government's case is not apparenlty a sure win.

    That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.

    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    The procedural issues (that the state have no standing to sue or that EO's aren't judiciarlly reviewable) were pretty obviously dismissed out of hand. They think the Constituationality points aren't sure wins for the Feds either, so then they have to decide whehter the injunction is with merit. Since there's much more harm in repealing it than retaining it, they have to keep it.

    You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?

    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Either way the 9th decided, this isn't the end of it anyhow. The decision is only on whether the ban would be stayed while the case proceeds through the court.

    People can throw all the rhetoric at it they want, but it's reading too much into it to claim that this is a WIN or LOSS for either side. It just gives some comfort for the anti-Trump side in the short term.

    I agree with you on these points. You can be sure that the next executive order will be better crafted. It's only been 26 days. I suppose there is a learning curve here.
  • 02-14-2017, 11:22 AM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    And you have no f'ing clue what you're talking abouit. The ninth circuit didn't say what you allege nor apparently were the politically motivated (by the way they were Republican appointees).

    What they ruled was there was inndeed standing and reviewability. Trump's arguments were pretty farcical especially on the last argument.

    What they have stated is that there's a likelihood that the states will prevail in their case and the impacts of upholding the injunction far outweight the impact of releasing it.
    Note, in analyzing the likelihood of success, the first Constitutional issue they held up is the DUE PROCESS clause. It's pretty apparent that there's not only no due process BEFORE the action was taken, this is even being denied AFTERWARDS. After acknowledging that issue, they address the religious discrimination issue which is with two parts. The first is the assertion that the ban specifically targets Muslims. This one perhaps is arguable since while the countries listed are predomiently muslim, there are many other countries (middle east and elsewhere in the world) that are predominently muslim and not affected. The thing that damn's Trump here is his own public rhetoric in which he states to ban muslim entry. Note that the "motivation" can determine constitutionality even if the effect is not all encompassing.

    So the 9th circuit DESPITE YOUR PROTESTATIONS has not ruled the ban is unconstitutional.

    It just has ruled that it's not clearly constitutional to the point that would justify removing the stay, weighed against the impact against the affected parties if it were indeed found unconstitutional.

    You can read it here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf

    THANK you.

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.



    You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?



    I agree with you on these points. You can be sure that the next executive order will be better crafted. It's only been 26 days. I suppose there is a learning curve here.

    Yes, it's only been 26 days and look at the utter chaos brought into and by the new White House.

    Can't blame Obama for that, my friend.

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The decision of the 9th Circuit was a political decision where they parsed the executive order to fit their political needs. It was not based on the law although plenty of law was cited. It was wrong on standing, it was wrong on religion, it was wrong on a travel ban.

    When judges have no f'ing clue (to quote a member) what the law is and promote a personal agenda you lose the rule of law.

    Bud, with all due respect, do you actually know what the original EO said? Your writing suggests otherwise, hence my confusion.
  • 02-14-2017, 11:33 AM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Yes, I have read it. You can read it here if you like.
  • 02-14-2017, 12:03 PM
    flyingron
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    That is one of my points. They could have if they chose to. They didn't because it didn't fit the narrative.

    You persist in seeing some leftist conspiracy here. They'd have to be even more right wing than Trump to summarily argue there's no possibility of a constitutional issue. The due process issue is pretty persuasive. You can't be holding people in airports and denying them access to legal counsel and the courts. There was good reason why Bush and Obama left the "ememy combatants" at Gitmo.

    Quote:

    You don't find it a little troubling that standing was based on a state's harm because a professor or speaker couldn't get into the country? And it wasn't that they couldn't get into the country, it was that they had to be vetted. Really?
    They can't get into the country, you seem to not understand what is going on. They have already been vetted. This happened when the visa was issued. Again, the courts found the impact of the stay remaining to be more persuasive than the impact of ending it.

    Again, the only issue is:

    1. Does the plaintiff have a chance at previaling (even at some level)?
    2. Is there some serious harm that results from the stay.

    The court pretty well answered that in a dispassionate manner in the answer. Again, this is not a "liberal" leaning panel.
  • 02-14-2017, 12:13 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Yes, I have read it. You can read it here if you like.

    .. and you still think the way you do? I'm genuinely confused. I do not understand how you get from A to Z when B through Y don't actually exist.

    Afterthought: Okay, let's see a show of hands. Who amongst us is actually familiar with and has a decent understanding of the current visa process?

    o/

    (That's me, in case it wasn't obvious)
  • 02-14-2017, 12:19 PM
    cbg
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    I think I have a reasonable understanding, seeing that I used to be the one in the office who worked with the immigration attorney who helped our employees through the visa process.
  • 02-14-2017, 12:43 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    I think I have a reasonable understanding, seeing that I used to be the one in the office who worked with the immigration attorney who helped our employees through the visa process.

    *sidebar* I just ordered UK birth cert. for strategic CYA purposes.
  • 02-14-2017, 01:57 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    They can't get into the country, you seem to not understand what is going on. They have already been vetted. This happened when the visa was issued. Again, the courts found the impact of the stay remaining to be more persuasive than the impact of ending it.

    And with a little delay, they were let into the country. Weren't they? Nobody was denied counsel.

    The 9th Circuit court is the most liberal court in the country and is overturned 80% of the time. Not a liberal leaning panel?
  • 02-14-2017, 02:00 PM
    geek
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    And with a little delay, they were let into the country. Weren't they? Nobody was denied counsel.

    The 9th Circuit court is the most liberal court in the country and is overturned 80% of the time. Not a liberal leaning panel?

    You wrote that almost line for line from the Gateway Pundit- a conservative blog. Do you have facts to back up that assertion?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...erage-80-time/

    Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about the case.
  • 02-14-2017, 02:03 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    I'm just going to leave this here ...

    http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-...=1486827461949
  • 02-14-2017, 02:07 PM
    free9man
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    I'm just going to leave this here ...

    http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-...=1486827461949

    You've done it now. Everyone knows Snopes is a tool of the liberal left. :rolleyes:
  • 02-14-2017, 02:12 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    This is not going to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is not playing that game (to their credit with a justice missing on the bench). They will reissue the executive order and take all the 9th's BS into account.

    No, I don't read blogs, conservative or otherwise. Apparently you do. Do you have any fact to back up that the 9th is not the most liberal court?

    The fact is that Trump won the election and is the president. Now you may hate that idea or love it. It is as plain on your face that what you think is through your rose colored glasses one way or the other.

    No sense arguing about it. Time will tell. Twenty seven days and counting.
  • 02-14-2017, 02:17 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    This is not going to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is not playing that game (to their credit with a justice missing on the bench). They will reissue the executive order and take all the 9th's BS into account.

    No, I don't read blogs, conservative or otherwise. Apparently you do. Do you have any fact to back up that the 9th is not the most liberal court?

    The fact is that Trump won the election and is the president. Now you may hate that idea or love it. It is as plain on your face that what you think is through your rose colored glasses one way or the other.

    No sense arguing about it. Time will tell. Twenty seven days and counting.

    Do some fact-checking. And I don't mean "alternative facts".

    It doesn't appear that we're wearing the rose-coloured glasses; we're still laughing at the "Bowling Green massacre" that never was.

    Quote:

    Quoting free9man
    View Post
    You've done it now. Everyone knows Snopes is a tool of the liberal left. :rolleyes:

    Oh, snap. I keep forgetting.
  • 02-14-2017, 02:29 PM
    geek
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    This is not going to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is not playing that game (to their credit with a justice missing on the bench). They will reissue the executive order and take all the 9th's BS into account.

    No, I don't read blogs, conservative or otherwise. Apparently you do. Do you have any fact to back up that the 9th is not the most liberal court?

    The fact is that Trump won the election and is the president. Now you may hate that idea or love it. It is as plain on your face that what you think is through your rose colored glasses one way or the other.

    No sense arguing about it. Time will tell. Twenty seven days and counting.

    And already, mired in scandal. Better not turn on the TV.

    By the way, he seems to think it's going to the Supreme Court.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Quv_ZWAAQxrF8.jpg
  • 02-14-2017, 02:40 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    It's typical that a liberal will get off point because they don't want to be confused by facts or logic. They are an emotional bunch convinced that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

    You know that there is a difference between subjective and objective reality. A liberal lives in a subjective reality. There is no getting them out of it. Objective reality is independent of a subjective reality. Objectivity is what it is independent of what someone may think. The truth exists regardless of interpretation.

    The philosophy of subjective and objective realities is probably over some of your pay grades. Your opinion doesn't change a thing. You could always read from some of the philosophers and broaden your outlook. But how would that comport with your present self image?

    Not directed at any one in particular but just a statement of how I see the world.
  • 02-14-2017, 02:55 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    It's typical that a liberal will get off point because they don't want to be confused by facts or logic. They are an emotional bunch convinced that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

    You know that there is a difference between subjective and objective reality. A liberal lives in a subjective reality. There is no getting them out of it. Objective reality is independent of a subjective reality. Objectivity is what it is independent of what someone may think. The truth exists regardless of interpretation.

    The philosophy of subjective and objective realities is probably over your pay grades. Your opinion doesn't change a thing. You could always read from some of the philosophers and broaden your outlook. But how would that comport with your present self image?

    Not directed at any one in particular but just a statement of how I see the world.

    10/10 for passive-aggressive tantrum! Excellent job. Well done, you!
  • 02-14-2017, 03:06 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    You make my point. Thank you.:friendly_wink:
  • 02-14-2017, 03:07 PM
    geek
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    It's typical that a liberal will get off point because they don't want to be confused by facts or logic. They are an emotional bunch convinced that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

    You know that there is a difference between subjective and objective reality. A liberal lives in a subjective reality. There is no getting them out of it. Objective reality is independent of a subjective reality. Objectivity is what it is independent of what someone may think. The truth exists regardless of interpretation.

    The philosophy of subjective and objective realities is probably over some of your pay grades. Your opinion doesn't change a thing. You could always read from some of the philosophers and broaden your outlook. But how would that comport with your present self image?

    Not directed at any one in particular but just a statement of how I see the world.

    I just posted a tweet from Trump that says he intends for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court. You say no. Where's your evidence? Are you saying he is not a man of his word? Your rant is not helpful.
  • 02-14-2017, 03:14 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    That tweet is and has been passé for days. You really need to keep up with the news and not keep passing on BS.
  • 02-14-2017, 03:27 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    That tweet is and has been passé for days. You really need to keep up with the new and not keep passing on BS.

    Translated: I know I'm wrong, but I'll be damned if I'm going to admit that here.
  • 02-14-2017, 03:33 PM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Well if the Trump administration takes it to the Supreme court we will know. They won't. And if they do, I will admit I was wrong.
  • 02-14-2017, 03:41 PM
    geek
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Well if the Trump administration takes it to the Supreme court we will know. They won't. And if they do, I will admit I was wrong.

    Fair enough.
  • 02-16-2017, 09:19 AM
    Ohiogal
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I agree with you. I take the law as a strict constructionist. They also know how to twist the ruling to accomplish their agenda. Let's not rule on the constitutional questions about executive powers.

    This was responding to freeman but I will just disagree with you Ron and you LL. No one is going to change their minds. You are both anti-Trump and that is all I need to know.

    Then apparently you are pro-trump and that says a lot about you... none of it good.

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    And with a little delay, they were let into the country. Weren't they? Nobody was denied counsel.

    The 9th Circuit court is the most liberal court in the country and is overturned 80% of the time. Not a liberal leaning panel?

    Bull. They weren't let into the country. Several green card and visa holders were sent back. At Dulles, feds were attempting to force people to relinquish their green cards. Several people were denied counsel at Dulles and other places. I know attorneys that were at those airports for hours attempting to talk to those who were detained. You are totally ignorant on this subject and really need to educate yourself. In fact, one court ordered that the feds retrieve someone they sent back to Iran in violation of the court's orders.

    Good grief, you drank the ignorant kool aid passed around by the fuhrer. If you want to blindly follow Trump, please make sure you are wearing your jackboots and proper uniform.
  • 02-16-2017, 09:41 AM
    budwad
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    I had to live through 8 years of a narcissist who could care less about what constitutional law was. But he was the president. Surely you will make it through at least 4 years of Trump.:excitement: Did you know Jim Jones personally? I guess you were off the compound that day.
  • 02-16-2017, 11:02 AM
    Dogmatique
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I had to live through 8 years of a narcissist who could care less about what constitutional law was. But he was the president. Surely you will make it through at least 4 years of Trump.:excitement: Did you know Jim Jones personally? I guess you were off the compound that day.

    Did you read the Snopes link I posted?

    I suppose it doesn't fit your narrative, huh?

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I had to live through 8 years of a narcissist who could care less about what constitutional law was. But he was the president. Surely you will make it through at least 4 years of Trump.:excitement: Did you know Jim Jones personally? I guess you were off the compound that day.

    Oh DO share proof of your armchair diagnosis .. please, do enlighten us!
  • 02-16-2017, 11:16 AM
    free9man
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    Can't we all get along? :p
  • 02-16-2017, 11:20 AM
    cdwjava
    Re: Inquiry of Trump's Travel Ban - Curiousity
    I note with some amusement, and more than a wee bit of revulsion, that there seems to be a consensus here that those who may have voted for Trump, or largely supported the sentiments that drove his ascension to the presidency, are morons, idiots, racists, or worse. Of course, they (we) are the deplorables, I presume, so of course we all manner of vile *ists.

    Yeah, I will admit it, I voted for Trump. Not because I was FOR Trump, but MY candidate was eliminated from the primaries early on, and i could not at all bring myself to vote for Hillary.

    Now, many of you might think that those who supported Trump were morons, racists, homophobes, idiots, and more, but you would be wrong. And, it is precisely that sort of attitude - elitist, if you will - that turned the country against the status quo and spawned a Sanders candidacy and, ultimately, a Trump presidency.

    No, I am not cheerleading everything the president is doing. But, I do look with curious eyes, some level of amusement, and even a wee bit of horror, at the reactions by the far left in this country recently (and I doubt that ANY of these throngs of college students and anarchists have the foggiest idea what "fascism" is all about). I will reserve my judgement on Trump's presidency when it is significantly further along. It is quite possible it WILL be a disaster. It is also quite possible that some good will come of it. If it means the evisceration of the political class in this country, then, Yay!
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved