Trump say appeals court decision on travel ban was 'political'

[elgordo38]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump say appeals court decision on travel ban was 'political'

How long is he going to keep flogging this 'political' dead horse. Yish. 3 years 11 months more of this crap.

[onthesoi]

There is no way Trump can sustain this level of humiliation, something has to give, maybe a massive stroke, or he'll start WWIII. or maybe he'll retreat to hide in the Whitehouse like Howard Hughes, wandering the darkened halls in his underpants, sobbing and muttering to himself!  Only making the odd public appearance here and there.

Edited February 10, 2017 by onthesoi

[smedly]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That wasn't the issue before the Court of Appeals.

 

One of the issues was whether the courts had the right to review Presidential Orders for constitutionality. The government argued that by the very nature of Presidential power, the President's Orders are "unreviewable" by the Courts. The court disagreed based on the checks and balances of the three branches specified in the Constitution. So the Court's decision was legally-based and not politically-based. The case needs to go back to the District Court for a full trial and court decision on the issues such as constitutionality of the travel ban based on the FACTS of the case.

 

Paradoxically, Trump said, "We'll see them in court" - an admission that the PO is reviewable by the court. Otherwise, he should simply respond that he'll ignore the court's decision as the court has no authority over the President and reinstate the ban by his own edict. 

You more or less said what I said except for the last paragraph

 

 

I have not looked at the finer details of the courts judgement and I am not going to either, the challenge is likely one based on discrimination and it opens up a right old can of worms.

 

The reality is that the world is now and always has been divided by one thing or another - religion accounting for most of it, we can throw in skin colour at one time but I think all reasonable people these days don't regard that is divisive ....................... we are all human

 

The problem is very much religion, I don't care about what people want to believe in....up to them "but" when it affects me as an atheist then I take great offence to that.

 

I could go back to a post I made several days ago but I am too lazy to look it up, in short - the modern thinking wants to be neutral when it comes to religion - the reality is  - there is nothing neutral about it - it is mixing oil and water..................it shouldn't matter in a modern society because all people  really need to do is abide by the (non religious) laws and justice systems that are in place and go practise whatever they want in privacy - but no some of  these people cannot do that because religion is enshrined in absolutely everything they do - to an extent that is fine too (there are already people living in almost isolation in the USA keeping themselves to themselves and having no ill thought of anyone) until you lift the lid off and we expose words like infidels and fatwah and people are being targeted/murdered because they said or did something that wasn't breaking any laws but some certain types of people who follow a certain type of religion ......found it offensive and want revenge - I call that proactive hate based on religious beliefs which for me has no place anywhere.

 

All these nice modern ideals are bringing people together that don't mix (oil and water) and on top of that - where these people are coming from of the same religion - they don't mix either, and because of it their own countries of origin are in ruins - they are all fighting each other - well they can keep it right where it is

 

Oil and water, that is the reality - sort it out on their own turf - if they can't then don't be bringing it to my neighbourhood

 

 

"in short" lol

 

just realised I'd have been better looking for my other post

Edited February 10, 2017 by smedly

[smedly]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

There is no way Trump can sustain this level of humiliation, something has to give, maybe a massive stroke, or he'll start WWIII. or maybe he'll retreat to hide in the Whitehouse like Howard Hughes, wandering the darkened halls in his underpants, sobbing and muttering to himself!  Only making the odd public appearance here and there.

the smart thing to do would have been to tighten up immigration and throw a few extra stealthy rules in there that tightened the qualification criteria

 

Any country has a right to control its borders

[WaywardWind]

9 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

Immigration law in the US already VERY clearly has different rules based on nationality.

 

Or maybe you can explain why someone holding a British passport can fly to and enter the US, when a Thai citizen can't without going through a lengthy visa application process.

 

So OF COURSE they can have different rules for different countries. That is the norm.

Do you really not understand the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant visas?

 

If you do, then you are simply trolling.

 

If you don't, then perhaps you need to educate yourself better on the topics you keep spouting off about.

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 hours ago, onthesoi said:

There is no way Trump can sustain this level of humiliation, something has to give, maybe a massive stroke, or he'll start WWIII. or maybe he'll retreat to hide in the Whitehouse like Howard Hughes, wandering the darkened halls in his underpants, sobbing and muttering to himself!  Only making the odd public appearance here and there.

When was Howard Hughes POTUS?

[newatthis]

4 hours ago, smedly said:

You more or less said what I said except for the last paragraph

 

 

I have not looked at the finer details of the courts judgement and I am not going to either, the challenge is likely one based on discrimination and it opens up a right old can of worms.

 

The reality is that the world is now and always has been divided by one thing or another - religion accounting for most of it, we can throw in skin colour at one time but I think all reasonable people these days don't regard that is divisive ....................... we are all human

 

The problem is very much religion, I don't care about what people want to believe in....up to them "but" when it affects me as an atheist then I take great offence to that.

 

I could go back to a post I made several days ago but I am too lazy to look it up, in short - the modern thinking wants to be neutral when it comes to religion - the reality is  - there is nothing neutral about it - it is mixing oil and water..................it shouldn't matter in a modern society because all people  really need to do is abide by the (non religious) laws and justice systems that are in place and go practise whatever they want in privacy - but no some of  these people cannot do that because religion is enshrined in absolutely everything they do - to an extent that is fine too (there are already people living in almost isolation in the USA keeping themselves to themselves and having no ill thought of anyone) until you lift the lid off and we expose words like infidels and fatwah and people are being targeted/murdered because they said or did something that wasn't breaking any laws but some certain types of people who follow a certain type of religion ......found it offensive and want revenge - I call that proactive hate based on religious beliefs which for me has no place anywhere.

 

All these nice modern ideals are bringing people together that don't mix (oil and water) and on top of that - where these people are coming from of the same religion - they don't mix either, and because of it their own countries of origin are in ruins - they are all fighting each other - well they can keep it right where it is

 

Oil and water, that is the reality - sort it out on their own turf - if they can't then don't be bringing it to my neighbourhood

 

 

"in short" lol

 

just realised I'd have been better looking for my other post

I agree with you and you should  include the right-wing radical Christians who also want to impose their beliefs on non-Christians.

[LannaGuy]

12 hours ago, smotherb said:

Did you never hear of a system of checks and balances?

sure we have it in England it's called The Opposition and they are elected but when they lose the vote we still went to war with you guys no one went to Court to say Parliament or POTUS didn't have the authority YET now we have it... now why is that? 

[spidermike007]

At least half of the judges that are ruling against Trump, were appointed by Republicans. He is continuing with his Orwellian Alternative facts campaign. Anytime he does not like what happens, or a decision that is made, or a news account, or anything else, it instantly becomes alternative facts. He simply cannot fathom the possibility that it is happening for a good or logical reason. It is an attack against him personally, if it is not in lock step with his wishes. He truly has the mindset of an adolescent, who has always gotten his way. He is ill equipped for his present position, and is not a good give and take sort. Not sure how he is going to be able to negotiate with our allies, much less our enemies, with this attitude of entitlement and his inability to ever express any humility. 

 

I am trying to keep an open mind about this guy. I was hoping he might have some constructive proposals for the economy. But, he is so bogged down with his immigration extremism, and refuses to acknowledge that extreme vetting has been in place since 9/11. All of the people who got visas and green cards in the past decade were extremely vetted. So, there was no risk in letting them in. He could have established the program, allowed all existing visa and green card holders in, but denied any new applicants, and few would have complained.

 

The fascinating thing about the megalomaniac, is that he seems to enjoy digging his own holes. He started a war with the media. He created this extreme immigration program, etc. He seems to love a battle. Hope he does not start a major war. Lord Bannon seems to be itching for a war with Iran. I think they would find Iran to be a far worse foe than Iraq, as they have very deep pockets, and it could very well turn into a 40 year war, costing the treasury tens of trillions of dollars, and possibly even bankrupting the United States, leading to major terror attacks on US soil, and destabilizing the planet. My guess is that it would lead to his impeachment. But, I see that coming anyway. I seriously doubt, especially after this ridiculous Nordstrom scandal, that this man will last four years. He will either be impeached, resign, or have an aneurysm. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by spidermike007

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

At least half of the judges that are ruling against Trump, were appointed by Republicans. He is continuing with his Orwellian Alternative facts campaign. Anytime he does not like what happens, or a decision that is made, or a news account, or anything else, it instantly becomes alternative facts. He simply cannot fathom the possibility that it is happening for a good or logical reason. It is an attack against him personally, if it is not in lock step with his wishes. He truly has the mindset of an adolescent, who has always gotten his way. He is ill equipped for his present position, and is not a good give and take sort. Not sure how he is going to be able to negotiate with our allies, much less our enemies, with this attitude of entitlement and his inability to ever express any humility. 

 

I am trying to keep an open mind about this guy. I was hoping he might have some constructive proposals for the economy. But, he is so bogged down with his immigration extremism, and refuses to acknowledge that extreme vetting has been in place since 9/11. All of the people who got visas and green cards in the past decade were extremely vetted. So, there was no risk in letting them in. He could have established the program, allowed all existing visa and green card holders in, but denied any new applicants, and few would have complained.

 

The fascinating thing about the megalomaniac, is that he seems to enjoy digging his own holes. He started a war with the media. He created this extreme immigration program, etc. He seems to love a battle. Hope he does not start a major war. Lord Bannon seems to be itching for a war with Iran. I think they would find Iran to be a far worse foe than Iraq, and it could very well turn into a 40 year war, costing the treasury tens or trillions of dollars, and eventually bankrupting the United States, leading to major terror attacks on US soil, and destabilizing the planet. My guess is that it would lead to his impeachment. But, I see that coming anyway. I seriously doubt, especially after this ridiculous Nordstrom scandal, that this man will last four years. 

agree he should have done that by just barring new entries by tightening up borders but I am no defender of the 'undocumented'  they are not following the laws and should not be there just as in Thailand I have no time for those who overstay their visa or don't have one

[spidermike007]

13 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

agree he should have done that by just barring new entries by tightening up borders but I am no defender of the 'undocumented'  they are not following the laws and should not be there just as in Thailand I have no time for those who overstay their visa or don't have one

 

I agree too. But, we are not discussing the illegal aliens on this thread. He banned legal aliens. 

 

Secondarily, how can we have a mature and serious  discussion about illegal immigration, unless we are willing to engage in a discussion about legal immigration, and ways to fix a completely broken immigration policy, that does not allow the best and the brightest into the nation, due to an antiquated quota system? It is inane. It is incomprehensible. Once you get beyond the tweets, it makes no sense whatsoever, and represents ignorant, racist, and xenophobic policy. 

 

I am fully in support of extreme vetting. But, it has been in place since 9/11. And I am in support of profiling people from the countries that are causing the most terror. But, if you are going to do that, you have to add Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to the list. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by spidermike007

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

sure we have it in England it's called The Opposition and they are elected but when they lose the vote we still went to war with you guys no one went to Court to say Parliament or POTUS didn't have the authority YET now we have it... now why is that? 

Because the United States has something the UK lacks: a written Constitution.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

My guess is that it would lead to his impeachment. But, I see that coming anyway. I seriously doubt, especially after this ridiculous Nordstrom scandal, that this man will last four years. 

It keeps getting worse.  Not sure impeachment is out of the question. Another day, another lie.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.e8cb49409481

 

 

Quote

 

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

 

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

 

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

 

 

[yardrunner]

10 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

In the future the line will be just one big blur between politics, the courts (after Trumps nominee casts the deciding vote its a game folks!!) and the pastor in the pulpit saying for "Gods sake" (no more no less on this statement) vote for a particular politician. Religion can now enter politics in a big way according to an executive order. Yes the pen is mightier than the sword. 

You may be right, it is obvious that Trump thinks he is infallible like the pope

[elgordo38]

35 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

You may be right, it is obvious that Trump thinks he is infallible like the pope

For the sake of disclosure I am not a religious person but if I had to choose it would be the pope hands down. Lets hope that the Donald does not sit on his little hands for 4 years. So far it seems he has  pen in hand and ready to give his autograph to any and all that crosses his desk. 

[Chicog]

15 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I am astonished by how unaware so many posters are in regards to this issue. But it is very clear that the majority of American people are well aware of two obvious points:

1. Nothing was done about this same thing when Obama did it (and several others); and

 

 

It is not possible to be "aware" of something that is not true.

 

It is, however, possible to believe a fallacy.

Obama did not "do it" as you (and the orange-faced fabricator) say.

So perhaps you should educate yourself before you bring right wing lies to the thread and attempt to pass them off as fact.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

sure we have it in England it's called The Opposition

No it isn't, it's the Courts.

 

Maybe things have changed since you were last there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

Edited February 11, 2017 by Chicog

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

It keeps getting worse.  Not sure impeachment is out of the question. Another day, another lie.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.e8cb49409481

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am really starting to think he will not last four years. I think even Lord Bannon, and his top guys are shaking their heads at this point. How unpresidential can he become? He refuses to show one shred of dignity, grace, elegance, class, or upbringing. Who were his parents? What happened? This is a guy who has done anything and everything he has ever wanted, his entire life. I am sure those stories about his depraved behavior were mostly true. What next? 

 

All I can say, is this is very entertaining, watching him make a fool of himself on a daily basis. I was not a supporter of Clinton. But, this? My heart goes out to his supporters. I am fairly sure there will be hundreds of millions of people who will have broken hearts sometime soon. I think alot of people overestimated his ability to lead effectively. 

[LannaGuy]

15 minutes ago, Chicog said:

No it isn't, it's the Courts.

 

Maybe things have changed since you were last there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

You have deliberately taken my point out of context and the UKSC CANNOT and DOES NOT overrule Parliament 

 

Maybe things were different when you were there but you didn't know it  :)  

 

Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?

No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to 'strike down' legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court's role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/faqs.html

Edited February 11, 2017 by LannaGuy

[smotherb]

4 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

sure we have it in England it's called The Opposition and they are elected but when they lose the vote we still went to war with you guys no one went to Court to say Parliament or POTUS didn't have the authority YET now we have it... now why is that? 

Lannaguy, the Opposition is not checks and balances. Please review http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html 

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Lannaguy, the Opposition is not checks and balances. Please review http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html 

see post 49 and I am all for checks and balances I can assure you but I am not for political courts in UK politicians do not appoint judges and I see political judgements all the time in the US

[stevenl]

His rhetoric is proved dangerous, with the judges receiving death threats now.

[mtls2005]

On 2/10/2017 at 2:14 PM, Andaman Al said:

Look at Sessions' face in the photo, now that is a caption competition    . "<deleted> is he saying? And I have got to be Attorney General for this clown. Hey hasn't his hair gone from orange yellow to white in 3 days?"

 

Yes, Jefferson is probably wishing he could have his second breakfast and get back to The Shire.

 

On the plus side, Trump hasn't gone quite as bat-sh*t crazy (yet) as that chap in the painting.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444786/donald-trump-judges-attacks-andrew-jackson-did-much-worse

[uptheos]

Oh dear this is what progressives do with your money, when they get it wrong.

There is no doubt Donald Trump has got it right. What an embarrassment for Merkel

Merkel offers cash handouts worth millions of pounds for migrants to return home in an embarrassing U-turn 

• The German chancellor agreed measures to speed up deportation
• An estimated 450,000 rejected migrants are set to be sent home
• Scheme includes £76million of cash incentives to leave voluntarily

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213978/Merkel-offers-cash-handouts-migrants-leave.html#ixzz4YMf0R7aA 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

[smotherb]

7 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

see post 49 and I am all for checks and balances I can assure you but I am not for political courts in UK politicians do not appoint judges and I see political judgements all the time in the US

Uh, need I remind you; the US is not the UK.

 

In 49 you're talking to Chicog about the UK Supreme Court. We were discussing US courts placing an injunction on a presidential order. In the US, all of the three branches of government--executive, judicial, legislative--can override the other--the checks and balances. That is so no one branch can determine policy alone--in this case, the president cannot become a dictator.

 

[Skywalker69]

On 2017-02-10 at 8:14 AM, Andaman Al said:

Look at Sessions' face in the photo, now that is a caption competition    . "<deleted> is he saying? And I have got to be Attorney General for this clown. Hey hasn't his hair gone from orange yellow to white in 3 days?"

[smedly]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Uh, need I remind you; the US is not the UK.

 

In 49 you're talking to Chicog about the UK Supreme Court. We were discussing US courts placing an injunction on a presidential order. In the US, all of the three branches of government--executive, judicial, legislative--can override the other--the checks and balances. That is so no one branch can determine policy alone--in this case, the president cannot become a dictator.

 

The is no room in any political landscape for courts and judges making or reversing policies that are implemented legally by Government - and when you mention Judicial above - it is not meant in the way you are intimating

 

and if you think the Judges and Courts are not getting involved in anything political - why do they keep mentioning the words "Democrat" and "Republican" when talking about the Judges indicating that it is their political affiliation not law that influence their decisions - there is something very very fundamentally wrong about that - they are not independent basing judgments on points of Law

Edited February 11, 2017 by smedly

[lifeincnx]

On 2/10/2017 at 1:18 PM, Berkshire said:

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Russia or N. Korea, where "executive decisions" go unchallenged.  Doesn't work that way in a true democracy, i.e., USA. 

...or even in a Constitutional Republic.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

see post 49 and I am all for checks and balances I can assure you but I am not for political courts in UK politicians do not appoint judges and I see political judgements all the time in the US

Yes. The ones you disagree with are the politically influenced ones because you are clearly an expert on the consitution and u.s. law.

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, smedly said:

The is no room in any political landscape for courts and judges making or reversing policies that are implemented legally by Government - and when you mention Judicial above - it is not meant in the way you are intimating

 

and if you think the Judges and Courts are not getting involved in anything political - why do they keep mentioning the words "Democrat" and "Republican" when talking about the Judges indicating that it is their political affiliation not law that influence their decisions - there is something very very fundamentally wrong about that - they are not independent basing judgments on points of Law

Who is they who keep mentioning the words "Democrat" and "Republican"? Unless it's the judges doing this why would that be relevant?