Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump's lawyer gets pounded by judges with questions about 'Muslim Ban' (tr)
Daily Mail ^ | February 7, 2017 | Francesca Chambers

Posted on 02/07/2017 4:43:39 PM PST by Truth29

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: BigSkyFreeper

You are right, but none of that matters to a liberal court or judge as we have seen over and over again.


41 posted on 02/07/2017 6:02:08 PM PST by falcon99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SFConservative
It’s actually 12% but that doesn’t change the argument that this is not at all a Muslim ban.For 88% of the world’s Muslims it is business as usual with regard to visiting the US.

Thanks for clearing that up... I'll use the 12% number from now on...

42 posted on 02/07/2017 6:05:46 PM PST by GOPJ ("CHRISTIAN BAN" DURING WORLD WAR II: GERMANS AND ITALIANS STOPPED FROM IMMIGRATING TO U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sargon

I respect your logic, and, until a year or so ago, I would have agreed with you.
However, I now believe we are engaged in an all out battle to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg WILL vote against Trump. Probably one other, I don’t know.
I see it as 4 - 4.


43 posted on 02/07/2017 6:18:23 PM PST by Palio di Siena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

Nope. We lost this.

9th will uphold, will go to Supremes, 4-4 remanded or 5-3 upholds judge.

They cherry picked this to go to 9th, but it wouldn’t matter. Was going to end up in the Supremes and as long as Kennedy is there, it’s either a tie or a loss (which means it’s a loss either way).


44 posted on 02/07/2017 6:23:37 PM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the 4Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Trump is apparently not aware of that. His Administration says they’ve followed every ruling.


45 posted on 02/07/2017 6:58:23 PM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: be-baw
I think Trump has been advised to be more polite to the courts, or at least not attack them.

Yeah, doesn't he know how well that has worked out for us in the past?

46 posted on 02/07/2017 7:36:37 PM PST by itsahoot (Return the power to the people, and Mexico will pay for the wall, 100%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart
if we don’t control the borders in every way possible ASAP we have no country left to worry about jobs.

That is what Reagan said, yet here we are.

47 posted on 02/07/2017 7:39:08 PM PST by itsahoot (Return the power to the people, and Mexico will pay for the wall, 100%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

This is all a sham. Just like what the D.C. corrupt and their collusive media friends attempted to during the entire election.


48 posted on 02/07/2017 7:51:43 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
But it won't work.☺
49 posted on 02/07/2017 7:55:49 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

He did a massive amnesty! Much of the problem is due to him.


50 posted on 02/07/2017 8:09:55 PM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Both sides were pounded with questions.

While the plaintiffs lawyer sounded more professional and capable, he was also somewhat belittled at times.

The female judge did seem to lean against the temporary hold, it didn’t seem as much of a slam dunk for the other two.

Don’t ask me why, but my gut says two to one against our views.

Wouldn’t be surprised if we lose them all or win two out of three.


51 posted on 02/07/2017 8:12:22 PM PST by DoughtyOne (NeverTrump, a movement that was revealed to be a movement. Thank heaven we flushed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis
the appellates sounded like they want to send it back down for trial (rather than up to SCOTUS) in order to pound Trump about campaign statements re: a muslim ban.

That's what I have been saying on other threads. Trump actually has himself to blame here. He said on the campaign trail that he wanted to temporarily ban all muslims from immigrating to the US. He later backtracked. However everyone knows his original intent.

Of course it is not fair to judge the current EO by Trump's earlier campaign statements but that is what these leftists will do.

52 posted on 02/07/2017 8:25:33 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sargon

The leftist judges on the Supreme Court have no dedication to the Constitution or the law. They will vote according to their beliefs. They won’t give a rat’s whisker about a constitutional crisis, in fact, they might welcome it. The left has been trying to destroy the Constitution for decades.


53 posted on 02/07/2017 8:38:23 PM PST by Pining_4_TX (For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. ~ Hosea 8:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
As well as when California voters on November 8 voted 59 to 41 percent to approve Proposition 187, the “Save Our State’’ Initiative.

ONE Judge ruled it unconstitutional and Calif pols would not fight to disprove that lie.

The people spoke and it won by a wide margin and they were slammed down. Imagine how set Calif would be if it was implemented?

54 posted on 02/07/2017 8:46:03 PM PST by Syncro (Facts is facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Rule #17

Never try to guess an appeals judge’s feelings by their questions, except for someone like AJ Scalia or AJ Ginsburg.

Many times they are just trying to see how well you have crafted your thinking on a matter.


55 posted on 02/07/2017 9:10:53 PM PST by Strac6 ("We sleep safe in our beds only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on the enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palio di Siena; GOPJ; Tennessee Nana; stephenjohnbanker
SCOTUS won’t back Trump on this. I see it 4-4. No way Kagan, Soto, and Ginsberg go with Trump. He has to figure a way to control immigration through not issuing visas until he gets Gorsuch on the court.

If the kangaroos on the 9th circuit rule against Trump and SCOTUS votes 4-4 that will be a dangerous precedent. However, if Gorsuch is on the court when they rule on the actual validity of the EO that might fix the problem. If we don't have another 9-11 or worse in the meantime.

56 posted on 02/07/2017 9:16:50 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LS

I think you’re right, that SCOTUS will uphold the lower court, and the biggest shame of it, it will go down as a precedent that will stick around for far far too long. Scalia’s words were prophetic; we’ve surrendered our country to five people in black robes.


57 posted on 02/07/2017 9:20:14 PM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Truth29; All

From what I heard and saw on Hannity and Tucker, the administration did not hit a home run with today’s hearing. Some of the guests were saying this could very well end up at Supreme Court.

So I have a question, this TEMPORARY ban was to last 4 months.

What if Trump were to just leave the stay in place, then at the end of the 4th month goes forward with a vengeance...By then we should have Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and Jeff Sessions in place...

Just wondering if it might be safer than risking the tied Supremes making some sort of wacky non-Constitutional ruling and over-reaching before Trump’s candidate is on the Court.


58 posted on 02/07/2017 9:27:24 PM PST by Freedom56v2 (JOHN 8:32 THEN YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

If we lose something so plain and obvious, then the immigration issue itself...Wall and all...is lost for a very long time. If you lose this, you are going to lose everything, because nothing will ever have to be this kind of reach. I would expect the Democrats to delay the Supreme Court nomination indefinitely...and if McConnell invokes the nuclear option, the Left will riot in the streets, violently all across the country.

Trump could not afford this loss on his signature issue this soon. The Democrats will smell his blood in the water and move in for the kill.


59 posted on 02/07/2017 9:28:58 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast

Democrats to delay the Supreme Court nomination indefinitely.


Can Trump appoint Gorsuch during a recess? I.e., a Recess Appointment? At least to get him onboard during this immigration ban/wall issue?


60 posted on 02/07/2017 9:31:23 PM PST by Freedom56v2 (JOHN 8:32 THEN YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson