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.
Why doesn't he Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the list?
They should be restricted too at is not a argument . These countries can prove to they are screening that's great. If not close that door until ISSA can be dealt with!
Why in the world should the ruling of a judge in Washington state, regardless if it's a federal judge, who argue the matter harms Washington state(love that one), impact the entire nation on halting this extra security check decision made at the highest level of gov?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
As I've noted in other threads. If Trump actually wants to do things he is going to have to quit being lazy, get his people in place and pass laws.
ahhh....probably because his cabinet picks have been delayed by the dems?
Immigration and protecting citizens is Trump's main obligation. Obama abdicated his job.
Really? So why is President Obama called the "Deporter-in-chief"? He has deported more than 2.4 million "illegals" which was more than any other president combined has done.
How did he "abdicate" his job ???
Why in the world should the ruling of a judge in Washington state, regardless if it's a federal judge, who argue the matter harms Washington state(love that one), impact the entire nation on halting this ban made at the highest level of gov?
Just wait and watch. I'll bet Trump was 1 step ahead and expecting this move. We have seen from the primaries that he is playing chess not checkers. I will probably be criticized, but just watch his next move.
Really? So why is President Obama called the "Deporter-in-chief"? He has deported more than 2.4 million "illegals" which was more than any other president combined has done.
How did he "abdicate" his job ???
Just wait and watch. I'll bet Trump was 1 step ahead and expecting this move. We have seen from the primaries that he is playing chess not checkers. I will probably be criticized, but just watch his next move.
Why in the world should the ruling of a judge in Washington state, regardless if it's a federal judge, who argue the matter harms Washington state(love that one), impact the entire nation on halting this extra security check decision made at the highest level of gov?
ahhh....probably because his cabinet picks have been delayed by the dems?
Why in the world should the ruling of a judge in Washington state, regardless if it's a federal judge, who argue the matter harms Washington state(love that one), impact the entire nation on halting this extra security check decision made at the highest level of gov?
No lawyer here, but the theory should be that even though we are 50 states there's no need to reinvent the wheel. If a question comes up in one state and is ruled on by a FEDERAL judge it applies on a National basis. Now because issues are never absolutely identical, there's nothing to prevent another Federal judge from ruling in a way that appears to be contradictory elsewhere so we end up with multiple case law. The Supreme Court becomes the final arbiter.
Because the language in the Washington order was "broader" than the other cases, it will take precedence until further judicial action.
Part of the problem seems to be that the executive order was not well drafted and grouped together parties of differing classes or standings. Portions of the order could well be found constitutional and stand for one class of individuals but not for another.
Why in the world should the ruling of a judge in Washington state, regardless if it's a federal judge, who argue the matter harms Washington state(love that one), impact the entire nation on halting this extra security check decision made at the highest level of gov?
ahhh....probably because his cabinet picks have been delayed by the dems?
You might want to note this reality "in other threads".
Or because he's in too big a frigging hurry to do it right. In any case, order vetting is done by the worker bees - the attorneys and the like. They are in place, being paid, and ready to work.
No lawyer here, but the theory should be that even though we are 50 states there's no need to reinvent the wheel. If a question comes up in one state and is ruled on by a FEDERAL judge it applies on a National basis. Now because issues are never absolutely identical, there's nothing to prevent another Federal judge from ruling in a way that appears to be contradictory elsewhere so we end up with multiple case law. The Supreme Court becomes the final arbiter.
Because the language in the Washington order was "broader" than the other cases, it will take precedence until further judicial action.
Part of the problem seems to be that the executive order was not well drafted and grouped together parties of differing classes or standings. Portions of the order could well be found constitutional and stand for one class of individuals but not for another.
Already happened - today as a matter of fact - in Massachusetts. Same argument, same evidence presented, different conclusion.
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.
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.
