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.
This is what happens when you rush and put out something illegal and unconstitutional. Victory! Long live our courts in the fight against tyranny.
There is nothing illegal and unConstittuional about the "ban." If it was illegal and unConstitutional for Trump, then it was also for Obama. Where was this judge then, when Obama did the exact same thing?
There is nothing illegal and unConstittuional about the "ban." If it was illegal and unConstitutional for Trump, then it was also for Obama. Where was this judge then, when Obama did the exact same thing?
There is nothing illegal and unConstittuional about the "ban." If it was illegal and unConstitutional for Trump, then it was also for Obama. Where was this judge then, when Obama did the exact same thing?
Someone has to file a case. Those who care now by and large didn't care when Obama did it.
And the ACLU just lost on this same issue in Massachusetts using almost the exact same arguments. So, headed to appellate court, likely looking for a stay to the lower court ruling and likely to be granted. Basically, this is not a definitive win by any means. Just a salvo in what will likely become, and quickly, a much larger battle. I'll go ahead and predict now, this effort to stop this ban will ultimately fail because the executive has a lot of latitude in issuance of visas and really only needs to show a rationale (e.g. fear of terrorism).
He absolutely did. In fact, the list of countries, unmentioned in Trump's ban, are the countries that Obama listed in his. You need to educate yourself. You are uninformed.
And the ACLU just lost on this same issue in Massachusetts using almost the exact same arguments. So, headed to appellate court, likely looking for a stay to the lower court ruling and likely to be granted. Basically, this is not a definitive win by any means. Just a salvo in what will likely become, and quickly, a much larger battle. I'll go ahead and predict now, this effort to stop this ban will ultimately fail because the executive has a lot of latitude in issuance of visas and really only needs to show a rationale (e.g. fear of terrorism).
The United States has the right to decide who is admitted into this country. We do not have "open borders." We can ban whoever we want.
The United States has the right to decide who is admitted into this country. We do not have "open borders." We can ban whoever we want.
And I suspect most judges would agree with it, as did the Massachusetts judge (a liberal judge ironically). This isn't even a difficult jurist decision as previous court cases have already set precedence. So, this Seattle judge? One off which will be easily overturned.
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.
