Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,407 posts, read 7,039,011 times
Reputation: 11656

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Well I hope you're not counting on Gorsuch to bring this to fruition for you. From what I hear he's a Constitutionalist. You can't be a "Constitutionalist" if you go against the Constitution.
Nothing in the travel ban violated the constitution.

 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:14 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,407 posts, read 7,039,011 times
Reputation: 11656
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimchee View Post
Really? And if they refuse to even hear the case? Would Trump give up on this stupid ban then? Or go on Twitter and call the SCOTUS 'so-called judges'?

The guy says he wants "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"...

He has over 90 days and counting. You think he has enough time to figure that out yet?
That's not what the travel ban did.

What he said during the campaign is irrelevant.
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,009 posts, read 25,978,952 times
Reputation: 15504
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
That's not what the travel ban did.

What he said during the campaign is irrelevant.

So you believe that the travel ban was to prevent irreparable harm as claimed in the petition, it states that the 90 ban was imposed after consultation with Homeland Security when they were not even involved. Homeland is supposed to determine that there is an existing and eminent threat based on facts, where are they? I don't see that he consulted with anyone except maybe Bannon.

Quote:
Petitioners (defendants-appellants below) are Donald
J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the
United States; the United States Department of Homeland Security; the Department of State; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; John F. Kelly, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
Rex W. Tillerson, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State; and Daniel R. Coats, in his official capacity as
Director of National Intelligence.

https://lawfareblog.com/department-j...n-irap-v-trump
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:42 AM
 
13,586 posts, read 13,069,149 times
Reputation: 17786
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I know... A temporary pause, gets called a BAN. Like it is permanent, because that story sells better.
Uhhh, the president himself said it was a ban the other day in a well publicized tweet
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:45 AM
 
45,676 posts, read 23,908,261 times
Reputation: 15559
Seems there is a bunch of conflicting issues up for subjective scrutiny....that's a poorly written ban...and the President's words matter during the campaign and afterwards.

But it is a joke now.....imminent threat for 90 days is gone, long gone.

And if there is a terrorist attack in USA the only way you can look to this ban is if the person came from one of those countries on the list.....not come from there 20 years ago...but in the last six months.

The ban is a game now and it looks petty and trivial for The White House to be bickering over it still.
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,434,151 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
That's not what the travel ban did.

What he said during the campaign is irrelevant.
The Federal Courts determine what is 'relevant'---and what Trump said during the campaign is very relevant..in fact, it is the crux of the issue.

The 'Establishment' clause, is indeed, part of our Constitution.
 
Old 06-13-2017, 05:57 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,434,151 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Seems there is a bunch of conflicting issues up for subjective scrutiny....that's a poorly written ban...and the President's words matter during the campaign and afterwards.

But it is a joke now.....imminent threat for 90 days is gone, long gone.

And if there is a terrorist attack in USA the only way you can look to this ban is if the person came from one of those countries on the list.....not come from there 20 years ago...but in the last six months.

The ban is a game now and it looks petty and trivial for The White House to be bickering over it still.
I agree, it's all about the 'win' now. Any win..heck..any perception that can be twisted into looking like a win--is what Trump wants. Substance? Who cares, right?

I wonder if this is the most ineffectual govt. we've ever had, given that the Republican's control everything?
 
Old 06-13-2017, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,407 posts, read 7,039,011 times
Reputation: 11656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
So you believe that the travel ban was to prevent irreparable harm as claimed in the petition, it states that the 90 ban was imposed after consultation with Homeland Security when they were not even involved. Homeland is supposed to determine that there is an existing and eminent threat based on facts, where are they? I don't see that he consulted with anyone except maybe Bannon.




https://lawfareblog.com/department-j...n-irap-v-trump
What part of the constitution states that the President must consult homeland security?

Again....

No one from any country has a "right" to come to America.

Last edited by FatBob96; 06-13-2017 at 07:26 AM..
 
Old 06-13-2017, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Georgia
3,987 posts, read 2,099,099 times
Reputation: 3106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
SCOTUS will set it straight
Then we can watch the liberals have another hissy fit!
 
Old 06-13-2017, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,407 posts, read 7,039,011 times
Reputation: 11656
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
The Federal Courts determine what is 'relevant'---and what Trump said during the campaign is very relevant..in fact, it is the crux of the issue.

The 'Establishment' clause, is indeed, part of our Constitution.
I can talk for months about how I'm going to buy a Mustang GT.

But when I get to the dealer and find out that I can only afford a V6 Mustang....
My previous statements about wanting a GT don't make it a GT.


Even if plaster it with GT emblems to try to fool people into thinking its a GT...

When you open the hood and look at what's inside...

It's still a V6.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top