Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/20/2017 6:41:00 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: RoosterRedux

Hopefully, these Leftist judges will be held accountable should any future terrorists whose entry they’ve sponsored be successful in killing American citizens.


2 posted on 06/20/2017 6:43:57 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
Gee....sounds like Trump's ban might re be about security.

The Ca killer terrorists went through 5 interviews...but none were in person...it was all paperwork.

So they got here with all the vetting done before they got to the door.

3 posted on 06/20/2017 6:46:01 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
Why in Christ's name should we give a damn about other nations’ immigration policies????????????
5 posted on 06/20/2017 6:54:16 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Comey = The Swamp Fighting Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
SCOTUS needs to pay priority and make a ruling ASAP.

This is about national security and the security of the public.

6 posted on 06/20/2017 6:56:00 AM PDT by PROCON (The Paris Accord was an attempt to get America to sign onto the One World Religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Why Trump needs to get busy appointing federal judges “toot sweet.”


9 posted on 06/20/2017 7:04:12 AM PDT by Bon of Babble (In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida, Baby!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

yea well too late to start narrowing your injunction. SCOTUS gonna smack your injunction all the way down.


10 posted on 06/20/2017 7:08:36 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

The 9th Circuit Opinion and Order was to this judge, it took him this long to do what the 9th Circuit told him to do. Doing it is no surprise either, i.e., not really news.


11 posted on 06/20/2017 7:12:37 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Because he is about to get slapped down by SCOTUS.


12 posted on 06/20/2017 7:15:10 AM PDT by DarthVader ("These lying tyrants are about to get hit with a tsunami of destruction on their evil reign." Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Why doesn’t Derrick Watson go suck a bag of ........?

Never mind.


13 posted on 06/20/2017 7:16:12 AM PDT by x1stcav (White. Male. Unreconstructed. Never owned a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

Quite frankly, even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, he should just institute the ban.

Better yet, shut down all immigration.

Too much danger right now.

He has the Constitutional and statutory authority already. Too bad if the Courts can’t read.

Congress wants to fight Trump, have at it.

Can’t live in fear of the swamp denizens any longer.

If it is not this clear issue, it will be another.

The people are not going to fight a President who is trying to protect them.


14 posted on 06/20/2017 7:16:20 AM PDT by exit82 (The opposition has already been Trumped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux
The judge narrowed the injunction clearing the way for the administration to conduct internal reviews of other nation's vetting procedures for visa applicants while the case is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, CNN reported.
I recall all sorts of news reports that the case is moot because the administration should have been working on this all along. I knew all along those challenges were bogus, because I knew the Hawaii Court's order forbid the administration from studying the vetting details.

Let that sink in. The Court prohibited the administration from studying the vetting practices of foreign countries.

Obviously, that fact was not viewed as newsworthy by the press - which was out there criticizing the administration for having the order in the first place, and "this case should be moot if the administration did its job."

15 posted on 06/20/2017 7:16:51 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

9th Circuit Court of Appeals their rulings are over turned 8 out of 10 times so much knowing about law oh wait liberals.


16 posted on 06/20/2017 7:24:56 AM PDT by Vaduz (women and children to be impacted the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

The statutes give POTUS the authority to take the immigration action. How much more clearly in violation of statute can this injunction get?

I’m really wanting a SCOTUS smack-down here, but unfortunately we won’t get it.


18 posted on 06/20/2017 7:32:12 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

So an appointed dick head of a judge can tell an elected President what he can and cannot do in an area that the President has full constitutional authority? BS!


19 posted on 06/20/2017 8:17:19 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Be Nice To Your Kids. They Will Pick Out Your Nursing Home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoosterRedux

SCOTUS will do the right thing I hope .


23 posted on 06/20/2017 10:42:47 AM PDT by Lionheartusa1 ()-: the left has become a black hole in space and time :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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