Posted on 03/10/2017 6:41:16 PM PST by mdittmar
Edited on 03/11/2017 7:28:05 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
See link.
That the way it reads to me....
I found it on Reddit.
Thank you.
Your links to the article lead to a completely different story:
“Politics | Fri Mar 10, 2017 | 10:16pm EST
Trump’s revised travel ban dealt first court setback”
Huh?
These people are attempting to do it on a shoestring budget (compared to a war expense) and without (virtually) firing a shot.
Strange thing is last time it went before the same judge he halted it. Must have rethought that decision. ;)
My feeling is there was a little backdoor negotiation ( i.e a discussion of the facts) with the ninth circuit. That’s why the delay in re-issuing the order.
That’s odd.
I’ve looked everywhere and I can’t find...I’d think redstate would’ve put it on front breaking news...not posted...
“A U.S. federal court on Friday refused to put an emergency halt to Republican President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban...”
The above sentence is not in the link.
Did you post the wrong link? Your link seem to say the opposite thing that the tile of this post declares?
The topic title is not in agreement with the linked article.
That works VTenigma. ~ I’m not sure where it will go next, but it’ll be interesting if it goes to the ninth court since they ruled against it the first time and then asked to rehear the case.
“The topic title is not in agreement with the linked article.”
The link *was* right. The article has changed though in a bad way. :(
Hawaii and others.
Great news!
Hawaii’s case is solo. Oregon , Washington , California , Maryland and New York were working on be conjoined .
“I’m reading it as the judge slammed down the new ban...am I correct?”
don’t think so. my reading is that the judge will not prevent Trump’s revised EO banning certain countries refugees from being implemented. so the ban can be implemented as detailed in Trump’s latest executive order.
Rose of Texas—you are correct and i am not after reading the report at the link.
I am at IKEA tomorrow and meatballs on me.
In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the original travel ban refused a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying that lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.
The federal judge in Madistan, Wisconsin said his ruling countermanding President Trump's revised Executive Order would apply to a single Syrian family. Of COURSE al-Reuters omitted that little detail in crafting their headline for the artcle, knowing their moonbat audience wouldn't read any further.
ALL of the Syrian refujihadis should be moved right into that neighborhood.
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.