More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court

[Buckwheat Flour]

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

More to the point is Trump's loudmouth statements during the elections concerning Muslims that have now backfired due to Constitutional Law. Trump today doubled down on his anti Muslim sentiments, the man has / is creating his own problems. One can only conclude the job of President of the USA is beyond Trump's emotional and intellectual capabilities. IMO Trump is creating an 'idiocracy'.

The presidents actions was overturned by a Federal District Judge. Ultimately the constitutionally of this matter will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. 

 

I acknowledge you appear to be moral outraged, I don't agree with much of your assessment, other than the fact that Trump is an ass and makes loudmouthed statements. I would never willfully vote for him, but certainly would prefer him to politics of HRC or ideology of Obama.  Bottom line is that you don't have to like Trump to hate the Leftist. 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat Flour said:

The presidents actions was overturned by a Federal District Judge. Ultimately the constitutionally of this matter will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. 

 

I acknowledge you appear to be moral outraged, I don't agree with much of your assessment, other than the fact that Trump is an ass and makes loudmouthed statements. I would never willfully vote for him, but certainly would prefer him to politics of HRC or ideology of Obama.  Bottom line is that you don't have to like Trump to hate the Leftist. 

I read the VOX article and it does seem to support my observation that Trump is his own worst enemy. Have to wait and see what the outcome is of the legal reviews of Trump's latest E,O. To my mind the judiciary in the US do currently have a major issue with political interference from the highest office in the country.

 

I have a UK background so don't understand US citizens going on about the  "leftists" HRC & Obama and in fact likely off topic comment.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[Buckwheat Flour]

16 hours ago, simple1 said:

I read the VOX article and it does seem to support my observation that Trump is his own worst enemy. Have to wait and see what the outcome is of the legal reviews of Trump's latest E,O. To my mind the judiciary in the US do currently have a major issue with political interference from the highest office in the country.

 

I have a UK background so don't understand US citizens going on about the  "leftists" HRC & Obama and in fact likely off topic comment.

 

Original topic:  Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect 

Hmmmm....You responded with a sermon berating Trump, claiming that was "more to the point".  Do you believe your comments were not weighted with ideology?  So, if someone counters to your sermon with a different ideological perspective, it is that person, not you, that has posted an off-topic comment?  Essentially what you are saying is that only malevolent anti trump comments should be allowed on this public forum.  Jeez, I don't even like Trump, and agree with you on some things, but he's starting look like a saint compared to some of you.

 

Back to the topic, in case any of you are still interested and wish throw in.

 

If framed as a matter of national security, it seems clear that, with good cause,  the President clearly has the legal authority to impose temporary travel restrictions on citizens from any country. The Federal Courts are not directly responsible for matters of national security. The judge's argument against President Trump's executive order is based on an assertion that the order is motivated by candidate Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric.  For constitutional reasons the federal district court has stepped in to interfere with the Executive branch's responsibilities. This is unusual, because it largely affects citizens from other countries, and depending on your point of view, could either be seen as judicial over-reach, or as judicial protection to uphold the constitutional rights of US persons who are affected by the ban. To uphold their position, I'm betting the federal district court will have to prove at least two things before the Supreme Court: 

 

1) The travel order discriminates against a specific religious group (Meaning all Muslims, regardless of country of origin)

2) The National Security concerns surrounding the affected countries are not strong enough for the President to have imposed temporary travel restrictions.

[Buckwheat Flour]

On 3/17/2017 at 8:29 AM, Rhys said:

 

Well somewhat understandable, but they are still dealing with the Hawaiian Sovereignty Issue.  The missionaries, the sailors, and Capt Cook intrusion of the Hawaiian nation and culture, provided a rationale for this political action?

Long live the aina

Doesn't seem so because other states are involved.  Moreover, 58 years ago Hawaii voted to join the United States. However, I guess one can now claim that was a rigged election and James Cook was really a US agent. If the population doesn't like the current statehood arrangement they can always start by supporting  Hawexit

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat Flour said:

 

Original topic:  

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect 

Hmmmm....You responded with a sermon berating Trump, claiming that was "more to the point". <snip>

 

Actually the original OP is More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court.

 

 

Your assumption of my intent is incorrect. My 'more to the point' comment was directed that if Trump had not opined with his bigmouth during the election process to "Ban Muslims" his EO would possibly not have faced the challenges in the Courts they have to date. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by simple1

[Andaman Al]

Got to laugh, even the Irish Prime Minister is lecturing Trump!

 

 

 

Edited to add - Trump really has got small hands 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Buckwheat Flour]

10 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Actually the original OP is More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court.

 

 

Your assumption of my intent is incorrect. My 'more to the point' comment was directed that if Trump had not opined with his bigmouth during the election process to "Ban Muslims" his EO would possibly not have faced the challenges in the Courts they have to date. 

Sorry for misreading your intention. I absolutely agree with you on this point.  

[Buckwheat Flour]

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Got to laugh, even the Irish Prime Minister is lecturing Trump!

 

 

 

Edited to add - Trump really has got small hands 

Said the blind man to his deaf friend who wasn't listening...I doubt his message had any impact on Trump.  You'd better watch out for the off-topic police.

[jerojero]

Only in Office 44 Days and the HRC Dems are pulling every dirty
trick to block His Programs....Usual BS in Washington.....they should
all be fired!!

Oh, and the Republicans didn't do the same to Obama for 8 years? Sheesh!

[stevenl]

Oh, and the Republicans didn't do the same to Obama for 8 years? Sheesh!

I don't find that an excuse.

But i don't see how the judiciary is HRC and democrats.

sent using Tapatalk