Posted on 03/17/2017 11:27:18 AM PDT by rxsid
A must listen for anyone who hasn't heard it. This is yet another example of what we are up against.
Here's an attorney that's involved with the recent Hawaii case that put a halt to President Trump's recent travel ban. She argues that our Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights applies to ALL people of the world...including foreigners living in foreign countries. Beyond stunning.
Tucker Carlson - Judicial Overreach Based On 1st Amendment - Travel Ban (begin around 1:45)
“Here’s an attorney that’s involved with the recent Hawaii case...”
She was involved with the Maryland case, not the HI case.
Mind numbing listening to the logic from this broad.
Tumlin is an idiot.
8 USC § 1182(f), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)
I wished he asked her about immigrating Christians.
> She calls them Muslim bans.
That shows that she is a liar. Muslims are not banned.
She should read the EO rather than drink the swill poured out by CNN and MSNBC.
“But she absolutely refused to even entertain or even consider any point that Tucker was making. “
Tucker missed an opportunity. His hypothetical was close to her case but lacked the important ‘blood relation’ component. Had he included that, she would have been forced to concede his point, which is completely valid the implications of which are very serious.
So, now could say a district judge stop the wall building, citing “perceived” animus Trump has against Hispanics?
She is inferring bad intentions to Trump from what he said in the campaign. Tucker tries to get her to admit that is a bad way to make law.
Our Constitution applies to anybody within the USA borders, including non-citizens. They have the same right to due-process etc. as everyone else.
It does not, however, apply to non-citizens outside our borders. This lady is just cherry picking when she is ok with judges making these rulings. Words have meaning, she’s arguing that the “intent” is discriminatory against Muslims even though there’s no such language and the EO not applying to 90% of Muslims. So in her mind, a judge can extend their authority into the executive branch when assuming intent regardless of the language written. Utterly absurd.
The case is centered on a muslim legally residing in the US. The claim is her ‘religious rights’ are violated because her relative (also muslim) would be banned from entry. In addition her relative is seeking refugee status.
The judge is saying as long as a ‘person’ is legally residing in the US, their (religious) constitution rights extend to their relatives.
SO to your point. If the hispanic was here legally and a Muslim, then their entire family cannot be denied entry.
“She is inferring bad intentions..”
She is. But more bothersome is the Hawaiian Judge included the same assumptions in his opinion.
This woman is an idiot. She thinks the Constitution means anything that they want it to mean. These people are freakin’ idiots.
Liberals within the judicial branch are trying to overthrow our government. We need to cut off their funding and they need to get real jobs.
Even with this great time of MAGA and President Trump, I am still deeply saddened and worried about our country. A portion of the population is not worthy to be a part of the great gift that our Founding Fathers by the grace of God gave us. All I see are stupid people. Liberalism and Islam is the super virus that is infecting the world.
Cool. That means our Second Amendment allows anyone else in the world to have a gun.
Is that the left's argument? Once Muslims kill off every other religious group in their country, we are no longer allowed to restrict immigration from there because it is now a "Muslim Majority" nation? Ludicrous.
Not just aiding and abetting - they ARE the enemy.
Indeed.
I wonder if the citizens of China know they have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
Or, if the citizens of Mexico know they have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizure?
Or if the citizens of North Korea have a 5th Amendment right...and on and on...
Or stop any military action against any muslim majority country.
“Or stop any military action against any muslim majority country.”
As long as there’s a relative in the US who claims damages. Relative killed over there in a drone strike? Well obviously some US dwelling refugee is due a huge check.
"Yelling fire in crowded theater"
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.