The supposed evidence that Trump “discriminates” is based on campaign rhetoric.
First, that ignores his refinement of his rhetoric as the campaign progressed and even moreso afterward.
As a political neophyte, it takes pure mind-reading to suggest that isn’t what he meant all along and what he believes.
Second, it is irrelevant compared to the power of the presidency to control security of the nation.
There is nothing about this order that is not security based and on the nature of the security status in each of the affected nations.
This is like saying the president can’t restrict the entry of Nazis, and therefor can’t restrict the entry of people from Nazi countries. While they are blowing us up. Because we believe in diversity.
Trump should challenge the first executive travel ban, not the second, now that he has his man on the Supreme Court.
Can we just hurry up and get this nonsense to the Supreme Court and smack these idiots down so we can get on with business.
I’m pretty sure that whatever Odunga had on Roberts can’t or won’t be used against him now, but I could be wrong.
If the 4th rules in Trump’s favor, Trump will order the travel ban immediately reinstituted.
If the 9th rules against after that, the case will go to the Supremes.
> a battle between presidential authority and the rights of foreigners to travel to the United States
There is no right for foreigners to travel to the United States.
The first & fourteenth amendments, as well as all the rest, apply only to Americans. All others are not covered by the Constitution. Only upon entry into the United States are foreigners allowed certain protections, but only because we extend them to them out of kindness and generosity. Time to stop this nonsense that foreigners have any access to Constitutional rights. Especially when they are not even physically present.
The judiciary has no business in this The law is clear...Even if it were a ban on Muslims, that is the presidens right to ban them. And if people don’t like it they get to vote against him in the next election.
Liberal judges are trying to ruin representative democracy
My reading of the Constitution makes it clear the only gov entity that can try a sitting president for anything (High crimes and misdemeanors) including actions of a President while in office is Congress. Courts are preempted
Don’t these Travelers(LOL) need a Visa anyway so no Visa no travel
It’s going to be broadcast on CSPAN at 1:30 CT.
Upholding Trump’s EO should be a slam dunk. It is blatantly, simplisticly OBVIOUS that the language of the 1st and 14th Amendments has nothing to do with foreign refugees outside of the United States. They are not under the “jurisdiction” of any state. Not to mention the clear constitutional authority of the POTUS to make unilateral decisions in this area....
So of course the libtards will find all sorts of convoluted trains of b.s. to try to make up NEW amendments that they wish had existed in place of the ones that actually do exist.
btw, even if it could be accepted that the EO in some ways disadvantaged foreign Muslims (even though it is directed at countries and not religion), that in no way could be a violation of the 1st Amendment which says that CONGRESS (no reference to the President) shall not ESTABLISH a national religion here in the USA. Disfavor abroad toward one of MANY religions in the world in no way establishes one particular religion here in the USA.
The libtards are always just making stuff up, out of whole cloth. Too often the courts let them do it as judges are too often happy to join in the fun.
Praying Trump finds favor with the judges..........In Jesus name Amen
I live in constant fear that Trump will deport my illegal alien ex-wife who lives at 23 N 32nd Street, New York NY. Third floor apt 311. She arrive home around 5 PM.</s >
Laughing. This is hilareous. An actual snowflake prosecuting the case. Laughing out loud. I cannot believe tbis. The judges are making a fool out of him.
I’m just curious here, but what actions CAN’T be reviewed by a court?
Do those black robed demigods have ANY limits on their power?
I heard earlier in today’s news that one of the R-appointed judges recused himself because Mr. Hall, the Acting Solicitor General of the U.S., representing President Trump, et al., is his son in law (or otherwise related, just heard in passing) and a 2nd R-appointed judge recused himself as well, leaving only 3 R appointed judges among the 12 hearing the case.
The hearing just ended. Mr. Hall, did a fine job. The ACLU lawyer was repeatedly tongue-tied under questioning by Judges Niedemeyer and Shedd. Surprisingly, Judge Diaz, an Obama appointee, asked the ACLU lawyer some pointed questions, and some more favorable than expected questioning toward the Solicitor General.
Judge Keenan and Judge King were the most hard on the Trump side of the argument.
It is an invasion protection order.
“The case, International Refugee Assistance v Trump, is centered on a battle between presidential authority and the rights of foreigners to travel to the United States. “
Except that foreigner DO NOT have a “right” to enter the country.
LOL they're making up their own law as they go along. Maybe this is what Trump was hoping for? It would take a little while, but hopefully set precedent, in effect telling judges they cannot meddle in foreign affairs.
The United States of America is not a Court Dictatorship in which the other branches of government merely get to make suggestions.