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.
He has not provided evidence + there is not enough evidence to support the EO's intent to satisfy that class of people is detrimental to our interests, therefore no. Which, unless proven otherwise. The court is correct to rule against the EO.
The evidence is in the fact, we are currently in a Holy War, and has been waged upon our soil by jihadists. These nations, in turmoil are full of jihadist.
Let's just let them all in. After all, it is a Right to come to America.
The evidence is in the fact, we are currently in a Holy War, and has been waged upon our soil by jihadists. These nations, in turmoil are full of jihadist.
Let's just let them all in. After all, it is a Right to come to America.
Clearly their ruling was not based upon the text of the law. It expanded the US Constitutions protections to all people in the world, without amending the Constitution.
Only We the People of the United States of America, are under the full protections of the US Constitution.
It does not say, We the People of Earth.
The executive order was vague and poorly written. If it hadn't been so poorly written and so poorly executed, then there wouldn't have been so many issues.
And you expansion comments are tripe. Since the hold does not expand anything, could not expand anything. It's a hold. And WE the People of the United States of America are privileged to have the US Constitution enumerating our rights and protecting them.
While 86% of the 9th Circuit's rulings that have been weighed by the Supreme Court have been overturned, the majority of the 9th Circuit's rulings never go on to the Supreme Court.
Maybe a look into the other rulings is in order and we can restore a little more liberties.
Maybe a look into the other rulings is in order and we can restore a little more liberties.
Maybe you can tell the Supreme Court that. I'm sure they'd love to go from 64 cases to almost 12,000 cases a year. As for restoring a little more liberties, it's not a case of a loss of liberties in most cases. It's a shift in liberties. Citizens versus businesses, individuals versus money. Conservatives tend to be on the side of businesses and money rights, liberals on the side of individuals.
There are deadlines to appeal the case and Trump may lose the opportunity if he tries to wait it out. Also, Gorsuch will be one of nine justices on the Supreme Court and there's no telling how the others will rule. Nor is there any indication about how Gorsuch will rule. While he's conservative, he's not a lap dog and he's not stupid.
Finally, I'm pretty sure that any forthcoming ruling is just about the stay of the EO. Whether it's stayed or not, it will eventually go back to Robart for a ruling on the merits. I haven't read the pleadings so I'm not sure this is accurate, but I think it is.
Yes I read it. It expands the due process of the US constitution, to all people on EARTH.
It rewrote the first 7 words of the US Constitution. Removing the words Untied States of America and changed it to EARTH.
Alternative facts.
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.
