Politics : The Courts Lose All Credibility if they Block Trump for Fake Reasons

It's fine for a judge to cry herself to sleep at night over Trump's "meanness." But to pretend that there is some constitutional reason that keeps him from carrying out his constitutional duty is absurd.

Trump is right. The left will be to blame for all future terrorist attacks committed by Muslim they have allowed to flood our nation.

Yeah, fake reasons like it being against the constitution.

Ok, I'll bite. How is this against the constitution? Tell me what Trump is doing and what part of the constitution it violates.

Not even the judge or the former acting AG made any arguments against its constitutionality. Apparently, Jeff-The-God-Of-Biscuits seems to know something they don't.

Here is an interview where Trump admits that the intent behind the ban is to eventually give preference to Christians over Muslims, and cites the fact that the prior arrangement treated everyone the same regardless of religion as a bad thing. (Bonus: He also lies and says that more Christians than Muslims are being killed by terrorists and repressive regimes.) This is a clear statement that the ban is intended to violate the establishment clause.

---

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees

---

It also violates the equal protection clause by not applying the law equally to all US residents. It also violates several treaties and conventions, which the Constitution obligates the president to uphold, chiefly the convention against torture, which prevents the US from sending someone back to a country where they are likely to face torture.

What Trump said he intends to do isn't the issue. It's what he did do.

---

It also violates the equal protection clause by not applying the law equally to all US residents.

---

A person attempting to enter the U.S. isn't a U.S. resident.

---

It also violates several treaties and conventions, which the Constitution obligates the president to uphold, chiefly the convention against torture, which prevents the US from sending someone back to a country where they are likely to face torture.

---

We have treaties saying we will let in refugees? Link, please?

Are you claiming that majority Muslim countries are likely to use torture?

---

We have treaties saying we will let in refugees? Link, please?

---

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

Do yourself a favor, STFU.

Nothing in that document specifies that the U.S. has signed any treaty in which it surrendered its rights to decide when and how to take in refugees.

Nice try with the "document dump" though. I'm a fast reader so it didn't work.

You're stupid and you didn't read past 140 characters. :D

Good grief. You just completely dismantled those posters.

X 2. OP is on fire

"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Judge Judy
Keep free speech and free thought alive!

Trump's EO overrides all of that and refugees are supposed to go to the nearest safe country, anyway, not this country.

---

refugees are supposed to go to the nearest safe country, anyway, not this country.

---

We don't ask often enough why their fellow Muslims in Egypt, Saudi, UAE, etc. aren't taking all these refugees.

They're supposed to go there, but they aren't obliged to stay there.



I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

Well, nobody but said nearest country is obliged to take them, either.

Just like Trump EO can overwrite the constitution with that BAN?

The other countries in that treaty are already taking in refugees.

What's the nearest country? Please for once in your life take a look at a *beep* World Map. ROFL!!!

The President (Trump won!!!) has the Constitutional authority to do exactly what he did. Period. It's his determination who is dangerous to the Amercian people and who isn't. Besides, why didn't you complain when Obama and Carter did the same thing Trump's doing? Maybe you're just another liberal hypocrite.

Carter banned Iranians during the period where they were holding American hostages.

And as for Obama, he never banned ANY country's nationals from emigrating.

---

I don't want the world. I just want your half.

---

---

Carter banned Iranians during the period where they were holding American hostages.

And as for Obama, he never banned ANY country's nationals from emigrating.

---

Obama placed restrictions on visas for the exact seven countries whose citizens Trump barred from entering the U.S.

But the criticism of Trump is that it was a violation of the constitution to choose those seven countries, not that a complete ban went too far.

So where's the consistency?

---

Obama placed restrictions on visas for the exact seven countries whose citizens Trump barred from entering the U.S.

---

No he didn't, you lying piece of sh!t. What CONGRESS did (since this "list of Obama's) was a last-minute rider tacked on to a BUDGET bill by a REPUBLICAN, was to say that people coming to the US from these countries for stays of less than 90 days weren't eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. All it meant was that they had to apply for Visitor's Visas and then they were free to enter the country.

---

Obama placed restrictions on visas for the exact seven countries whose citizens Trump barred from entering the U.S.


No he didn't, you lying piece of sh!t. What CONGRESS did (since this "list of Obama's) was a last-minute rider tacked on to a BUDGET bill by a REPUBLICAN, was to say that people coming to the US from these countries for stays of less than 90 days weren't eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. All it meant was that they had to apply for Visitor's Visas and then they were free to enter the country.

---

Temper, temper, Bosco. It's only ten days after welfare check day and you're already irritable due to running out of money?

Obama signed the bill, so he takes responsibility for it. It's not like he's hesitated to not sign budget bills in the past when they didn't suit him.

---

Temper, temper, Bosco. It's only ten days after welfare check day and you're already irritable due to running out of money?

---

Really, hunnie? You want to try and trot out the "welfare check" canard?

---

Obama signed the bill, so he takes responsibility for it. It's not like he's hesitated to not sign budget bills in the past when they didn't suit him.

---

Except that 1) he didn't create the list (as you implied), and 2) the bill that was signed didn't do what you claimed it did.

Other than those two things (you know, the only points you made there) you were factually accurate.

---

Except that 1) he didn't create the list (as you implied),

---

He created it as a law when he signed it.

---

and 2) the bill that was signed didn't do what you claimed it did.

---

It sure did.

---

He created it as a law when he signed it.

---

He signed the bill into law. He did not create the list, you assclown.

---

It sure did.

---

It sure as fck didn't, Ollie. It placed no "visa restrictions" on visitors from those countries. Unless, of course, that by "visa restrictions" you mean that short-term visitors from those countries HAD TO GET Visitor Visas.

---

He created it as a law when he signed it.


He signed the bill into law. He did not create the list, you assclown.

---

What part of "he created it as a law when he signed it" is too hard for you?

---

It sure did.


It sure as fck didn't, Ollie. It placed no "visa restrictions" on visitors from those countries. Unless, of course, that by "visa restrictions" you mean that short-term visitors from those countries HAD TO GET Visitor Visas.

---

Yes, that made it take longer than before Obama signed the law for visitors from those seven countries to enter the United States. Which is what Trump's order does. Under Obama's law, people from those countries were temporarily banned until they got visas. Under Trump's EO, people from THOSE SAME countries are temporarily banned for a set period of time.

How is one "unconstitutional" and the not?

Try not to bust a gasket over this, Bosco. I'd hate for you to stroke out the last day of this board.

---

What part of "he created it as a law when he signed it" is too hard for you?

---

What part of "signing the law and creating the list aren't the same thing" is too hard for you, fck-muppet?

---

Yes, that made it take longer than before Obama signed the law for visitors from those seven countries to enter the United States.

---

How would it take longer for visitors to enter the US, since a person obtains a visa BEFORE travelling? Do you understand anything about global travel, dipsh!t?

---

Under Obama's law, people from those countries were temporarily banned until they got visas.

---

Except that they weren't banned at all. See the above statement about when a person gets a visa.

---

Under Trump's EO, people from THOSE SAME countries are temporarily banned for a set period of time.

---

And Trump's ban (wait, weren't you saying it wasn't a ban?) revoked the valid visa without cause or due process. Care to take a stab at why that's unconstitutional?

---

What part of "he created it as a law when he signed it" is too hard for you?


What part of "signing the law and creating the list aren't the same thing" is too hard for you, fck-muppet?

---

It is exactly the same thing. Until Obama signed that law, there was no list of countries on whose citizens Obama had placed restrictions. After he signed it, there was a list of countries on whose citizens Obama had placed restrictions. That's creating the list.

---

Yes, that made it take longer than before Obama signed the law for visitors from those seven countries to enter the United States.


How would it take longer for visitors to enter the US, since a person obtains a visa BEFORE travelling? Do you understand anything about global travel, dipsh!t?

---

Applying for and obtaining a visa takes time. You thought that was instantaneous?

---

Under Obama's law, people from those countries were temporarily banned until they got visas.


Except that they weren't banned at all. See the above statement about when a person gets a visa.

---

They were banned until the got a visa. Before Obama created that list, they were not banned until they got a visa.

---

Under Trump's EO, people from THOSE SAME countries are temporarily banned for a set period of time.


And Trump's ban (wait, weren't you saying it wasn't a ban?)

---

I said it wasn't a travel ban. The fact that you don't understand the difference shows the need for reeducation for many libbies on here.

---

revoked the valid visa without cause or due process. Care to take a stab at why that's unconstitutional?

---

It isn't. There's no guarantee of due process in the U.S. constitution for foreigners living outside the U.S.

Notice that Jeff-The-God-Of-Biscuits is now silent.

How is it against our constitution if other Presidents (nearly everyone) have done it?

---

Yeah, fake reasons like it being against the constitution.

---

Educate yourself.

The Leftie judge appointed by W. Bush?



There must be some kind of way outta here
Said the joker to the thief

LOLLLL!! Wow owned, so bad. He must be walking funny now. Ouch ouch!

Yep, W Bush was very liberal for a Republican. Makes you wonder why so many dumb sht lefties hated him so much.

Do you really want to play this game with me?

However, let's start with this one:

All Orders are subject to an attack based on "pretext": that, while not indicating an improper intent on their face, they do have an improper intent. Now, since Trump has described it as a "Muslim ban," at least one of his media surrogates (Giuliani) admitted that the attempt was to obtain a partial ban on Muslims without using the term "Muslim," and it has a carve-out specifically designed to prioritize Christians who are trying to travel from those nations, how does this not violate the law against religious tests for immigration?

I have never appeared before Judge Robart, but I sure want to now.

One other thing Robart noticed that struck me as really sketchy was Trump's choice to lead by waving the bloody banner of 9/11. Now, here's a quiz question for you: what does a single terrorist attack, that took place over 15 years ago, and INVOLVED NOBODY FROM ANY OF THE NATIONS SUBJECT TO THE TRAVEL BAN, have to do with the scope of the current Order?

Finally: while I don't think I have ever met Robart personally, I have litigated against his old firm many times. They are very bright people, who make their money representing corporations most of the time. Forget the attorneys; I would bet, very heavily, that any randomly picked office staffer or paralegal knows more about Constitutional issues than you.

By the way: Judge Robart is a man, and a Bush II appointee. Figure it out.



Look- it's trying to think!

---

Do you really want to play this game with me?

---

No, you're much too scary. I couldn't even read the rest of your post, I was so shook up when I realized who I was messin' with.

---

No, you're much too scary. I couldn't even read the rest of your post, I was so shook up when I realized who I was messin' with.

---

You'd look a lot more credible if you overcame your dread and did so, then answered the actual queries.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoxZuggJk0I&t=7m06s

Twelve bar has his sycophant accounts for a reason. Their is absolutely no reason to reply to this guy with an arguement because he is a narcissist incapable of admitting being wrong. I'm sure his family and relationships have expressed that he thinks he is always right. It is a great indicater.

TrashCan does the exact same thing. They are prob one in the same. He once sliped an admission when I asked about his name, and told me it is based on his "failed attempt at learning to play the guitar" and that is his negative admission for the year.

I don't know why he even pretends to ask questions or post, he's always right. If you reply just tell him,

Yup you're right! You are always right!

As a matter of fact, I'm going to add that to my Trumpist cookie cutter copy and paste section in my bio.

Formerly Self-Appointed_Digby_Scout

[thumbs-up]


Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty.

Yeah, allof the deaths from attacks perpetrated by terrorists from the seven banned countries have been awful. All 0 of them.

Believing that HIV causes or does not cause AIDS is of no consequence. - kinch_telemachus

This photo says it all:

Well, Spicer mentioned it at a press briefing, but oddly used it to argue in favor of Trump's policies. I can be charitable and assume that it was a mistake rather than a deliberate falsehood, but it's still troubling that Trump hasn't acknowledged the shooter's white nationalism, now that all of the information is available.

Believing that HIV causes or does not cause AIDS is of no consequence. - kinch_telemachus

What was the constitutional reasoning (Dubya appointee) Judge Robarts cited as a reason for the temporary restraining order? Please be specific, and cite your sources. Are you aware of the distinction between a temporary hold or restraining order and a decision?

---

What was the constitutional reasoning (Dubya appointee) Judge Robarts cited as a reason for the temporary restraining order? Please be specific, and cite your sources. Are you aware of the distinction between a temporary hold or restraining order and a decision?

---

Are you asking me? I'm not talking about any one decision. I'm making a comment on the idea that low-level judges think they can prevent the president of the United States from protecting U.S. citizens.

As you can see, my post was in response to your OP, so yes I am asking you.

Are you able to answer the two questions I asked you in my first post?

1. What constitutional reasoning has been given by Judge Robarts for the temporary restraining order? The assertion in your OP rests on you being able to answer this question, so I imagine you are prepared to do so.

2. Do you understand the difference between a temporary restraining order and a decision?

It seemed strange that you were asking me, since your question had little to do with my OP.

No, I don't know the constitutional reasoning Judge Robarts gave and no, my OP does not "rest" on my being able to tell you what it is. Feel free to start your own thread to debate that topic, though.

I do know the difference between a restraining order and a decision.

Do you know the difference between commenting on a specific restraining order or decision and commenting on a more general concept like lower courts attempting to prevent a POTUS from protecting the United States?

I guess that question is rhetorical since clearly you don't know that difference.

Ok, you're choosing to be obtuse. Have fun with that!

Run away, then . . .

You cannot cite one "constitutional reason" being used by a judge to thwart your Dear Leader's bizarre, unvetted EO.

Until you can do so, we're done here.

---

You cannot cite one "constitutional reason" being used by a judge to thwart your Dear Leader's bizarre, unvetted EO.

---

and?

---

I'm making a comment on the idea that low-level judges think they can prevent the president of the United States from protecting U.S. citizens.

---

Tell ya what, Twelve Bar.

I want to you go to your closest Federal District Court, and tell the sitting District Court Judges that they are "low level." Go on, I dare you

Do you even have the slightest idea what Federal Court jurisdiction is? Well, do you?

Now, while this might not have dented your consciousness on this issue: Circuit Courts of Appeal and the SCOTUS, with rare exception, require a District Court Order, Verdict, or Decision, in order to exercise appellate jurisdiction. So, for the entire system to work properly, those "low-level" District Court Judges have to have the power to issue a TRO against an Executive Order.

So, what was the point of your "comment," again?


Look- it's trying to think!