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.
What am I talking about? What you don't want to hear.
Good way to screen those with bad intentions, that made it past the gate the 1st time.
no. neither they nor the court wants to read and follow the law. they wish to interpret. meanwhile the doors are open. Trump can win this one easily he just does not want to bring the hammer down to quickly.
Nice, pretty and special....just the way it should be but cannot be in this world we occupy right now.
Was it the AG from Washington who said there was no evidence...? Note: Those are convictions, not accusations!
Take a look at what they are using for source data A number of these people were not convicted of 'terrorism' but relatively minor crimes like identify theft. Others were native born US Citizens and at least one Citizen did not know where his parents came from but he thought his mother might be from Iraq. I don't want to waste more time on it, it's just CIS nonsense
Even Chris Matehews think 9th circuit kinda over reached. They really messed up I think,
And he became an expert on Constitutional law when? He's a bloviating troglodyte whose only talent is in talking over his guests and hawking his own $hitty books
Easy read for the simple of mind. 1 terrorist attack is far to many. We prevent thousands of fatalities with seat belts does not mean we're done with auto safety. I bridle each time I hear the argument that you posit...seriously I get nauseated.
How many is to many for your point of view. All due respect dude but that's just another obama mama excuse. Remember the dignity he gave them..."the JV team".
THESE ARE THE DARK MONSTERS FROM REAL NIGHTMARES THROWING THIER BLOOD RAGED CRAVINGS AT OUR PROGRESS AND OUR CIVILIZATION. THE SOONER THAT THEY ARE ALL BURIED THE BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
Easy read for the simple of mind. 1 terrorist attack is far to many.
Sometimes you have to dumb it down for people like Trump supporters.What I find interesting is you think it's ok to say to hell with the Constitution on this issue but lord knows mention the 2nd amendment and all hell will break loose.
Sometimes you have to dumb it down for people like Trump supporters.What I find interesting is you think it's ok to say to hell with the Constitution on this issue but lord knows mention the 2nd amendment and all hell will break loose.
You assume your opinions are facts both about the issue and about me. For both they are not.
Yet another extraordinary claim: So-called President argued that the president’s authority to suspend immigration was “unreviewable":
"The administration's sweeping assertion of presidential power "runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.
"Courts owe considerable deference to the president’s policy determinations" in areas of immigration and national security, but they still have authority to decide whether those orders violate constitutional rights, the judges said."
Find the LAW and read it! There is NO provision in there for any review of any kind!
Here it is for your information and edification:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The above is an excerpt from 8 United States Code 1182, the law that the EO was based on. Can you see any provision for a review by any bureaucracy? I can't. I do not think it is there!
Come to think of it, one would think the Court would be aware that the United States is not and never has been a Democracy of any kind. It is a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Representatives of the People passed that law as written, and a former President signed it into law many years ago. No court has seen fit to question it until now.
I wonder why?
And he became an expert on Constitutional law when? He's a bloviating troglodyte whose only talent is in talking over his guests and hawking his own $hitty books
I remember election night, he and the co host for msnbc looked like they had been kicked in the balls.
Not Rachel the other guy...Laurence.
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.
