Posted on 02/09/2017 3:48:23 PM PST by monkapotamus
I’m sincerely curious about this...if the Washington State Attorney General filed a federal lawsuit against Trump’s EO, and the Judicial Branch has no standing on the EO, what should the Justice Department have initially done? Simply refuse to appear at the original hearing?
A “D10” is a HUGE Bulldozer.
Lot of other stuff like that on YouTube. I doubt most on here have any idea how automated everything is getting. Farming has change from the day when a man and a mule raised enough for a family and a little income.
Gerrymandered districts work. Berry and the court. Add two more, more conservative courts to the ninth and make four instead of three circuits.
Then appoint lots of conservative justices to get all four in line
Dang! What Abe’s family could’ve built with access to that machine ;-)
I would say so. If they [Judicial Branch] has no standing, why should they have to be there? Other than that, I really don’t know. What |I do know is that I do not give a hoot about how many heads the muslims cut off or how many people they rape. I will stop them from cutting my head off or raping me. Protect yourself. Donald is trying to protect everyone and is getting pissed on. Makes me angry.
I agree. Orchestrated failure on that call.
Plus the leaked calls. Details about meetings. The subversion from within.
They’d better make a list and start firing starting tomorrow afternoon. He’s being too nice and too trusting internally.
These judges are lawless - utterly lawless. There`s no other way to describe it. I encourage our side to describe them this way when talking to the MSM. They are literally ignoring the clear, unambiguous meaning of the written law.
It’s ok, tempers are a flaring everywhere I’m sure, don’t sweat it... But thanks for the kind words.
I am not in a particular awesome mood right now. This is a real national crisis, very frustrating. Somewhere there is a rational answer to all this I hope.
As much as it embarrasses me to have to apologize to you again. I have to. I put the number of your initial post as the one I requested removed. After requesting to have the correct post removed and apologizing again to you for any inconvenience I caused, I am going to bed.
Thanks for understanding. I am still going to bed. Good luck and God Bless you!
Not to belabor the point, but our side needs to get aggressive in dealing with this, and part of that has to do with the language we use. Don`t refer to them as activist judges. That`s too kind and means nothing to the casual observer. It`s probably the exact term the left wants us to use because it makes them sound like they ascribe to some harmless, legitimate judicial philosophy . Lawless spells it out in black and white, and it is totally accurate, not spin. We have the moral high ground here and should use the most effective language we can to convey how illegitimate this decision is.
Yes, and God Bless America.
Bump
1998 pfftt
It seems to me that the court might be able to justify the block of section 3c because it affects people in the US, without a mechanism for hearings.
But I see no justification for blocking sections of 5 which deals with refugees. No state is harmed by not allowing in refugees that aren't already in the U.S..
The only possible justification for block 5 is that of religious discrimination. And the 9th, didn't address that, just said they reserved the right to address it in the future.
SCOTUS should reinstate 5 and evaluate the merits of 3c.
In the mean time, Trump needs to rewrite 3c to better accommodate people already in the U.S..
If the court ties 4-4, the issue can be revisited after the 9th justice is seated. If the issue fails 5-3, then he wasn't going to win this battle even with Gorsuch.
In that case:
The real terror countries are not on the ban list. This is the dumbest thing Trump could be spending his time on. It is all a dog and pony show.
This will not stop terror.
If Trump was SERIOUS, about stopping the next terrorist attack, then we would see at least four or five other countries on the list.
Explain that? You can’t.
This is fake outrage. Serves no purpose. Waste of time.
“The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries
named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the judges wrote.
In other words, there has to be an attack before they’ll see fit to allow Trump
to exercise his Constitutional duty to protect the Nation and its citizens.
That is exactly what they are trying to do.
Invasion as a civil right, but only for non-whites.
The Courts are trying to make aliens into a Protected Class.
Thus they will declare the borders "racist" and un-Constitutional.
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.