Refugees/Citizens of Muslim Countries Barred

[+and-then]

Just now, Claire. said:

No. The judge based his LEGAL opinion (partly) on STATEMENTS made by the president and others in his administration.

Which is also against the law.  Issuing a stay has to be based upon finding a lack of support from the law that was used to bolster the E.O.   That has never even happened with the first E.O.  No ruling has ever been made on the merits of law.  His E.O. is constitutional and it will be enforced at some point.  Until then he should just formulate and enforce the new vetting standards.  They cannot be set aside by some hack in a circuit court in Queens.  The employees of the offices doing the vetting WILL apply the new standards or they will get walking.  They can certainly be fired for cause.  Willfully disobeying an order is cause.

[.ZZ.]

I see what's happening.

No matter how "watered down" the EO has become, and any further EOs that may follow, will be denied by some federal judge somewhere.

Because candidate Trump's statement about a "Muslim ban" will be used against him for all eternity.

Never mind what is legal in the EO.

I'm no legal scholar, but I thought when a case was heard before a judge, that only relevant evidence could be used to adjudicate a decision.  In this case why isn't it ONLY what is contained the the EO?

[Claire.]

30 minutes ago, and then said:

Which is also against the law.  Issuing a stay has to be based upon finding a lack of support from the law that was used to bolster the E.O.   That has never even happened with the first E.O.  No ruling has ever been made on the merits of law.  His E.O. is constitutional and it will be enforced at some point.  Until then he should just formulate and enforce the new vetting standards.  They cannot be set aside by some hack in a circuit court in Queens.  The employees of the offices doing the vetting WILL apply the new standards or they will get walking.  They can certainly be fired for cause.  Willfully disobeying an order is cause.

The president does not have absolute authority. He is accountable to both the Constitution and to the people. The only time he would be able to unilaterally impose an executive order that is not fact-based or properly vetted, is in the event of an emergency situation. As I've already mentioned, there is no such emergency.

As for the law Trump used to 'bolster' his executive order, well, it did not quite 'bolster' it. If anything, his travel ban may be in violation of it.

[Claire.]

57 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I see what's happening.

No matter how "watered down" the EO has become, and any further EOs that may follow, will be denied by some federal judge somewhere.

Because candidate Trump's statement about a "Muslim ban" will be used against him for all eternity.

Never mind what is legal in the EO.

I'm no legal scholar, but I thought when a case was heard before a judge, that only relevant evidence could be used to adjudicate a decision.  In this case why isn't it ONLY what is contained the the EO?

Trump's statements are important because they indicate intent.

[.ZZ.]

3 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Trump's statements are important because they indicate intent.

Cool, I disagree, but hey! It's all good.

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, .ZZ. said:

I see what's happening.

Because candidate Trump's statement about a "Muslim ban" will be used against him for all eternity.

And meanwhile you cite him doing what he says he'd do as a good thing.  

 

Quote

Never mind what is legal in the EO.

What's that, how's that, and why does it matter?

[.ZZ.]

12 minutes ago, Yamato said:

And meanwhile you cite him doing what he says he'd do as a good thing.  

 

What's that, how's that, and why does it matter?

If I agree it's really a Muslim ban can I move from #2 to #1 on your Yamafone speed dial?

[Yamato]

1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

If I agree it's really a Muslim ban can I move from #2 to #1 on your Yamafone speed dial?

Just answer the question dude.  Why does what's legal in the EO matter? 

[.ZZ.]

Just now, Yamato said:

Just answer the question dude.  Why does what's legal in the EO matter? 

Forget it "dude", I won't bite on that.

I couldn't care less.

[Yamato]

Just now, .ZZ. said:

Forget it "dude", I won't bite on that.

I couldn't care less.

Not surprised bud.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Claire. said:

As I've already mentioned, there is no such emergency.

Yes, I noticed that.  You based that determination on what, exactly?  Did your intelligence team give you an up to date briefing on world events, trends and dangers?  I get that you guys loathe Trump.  That's fine with me.  I loathe Obama and probably always will do.  But when a citizen or even an active Federal judge makes that kind of decision without the same level of intelligence information, it is an outrageous political statement, not a fact based conclusion.  If, tomorrow, an immigrant that just got here from one of those countries, ANY of those countries, and killed multiple citizens in an attack, would you admit you were wrong to judge the way you did?  Careful, this is a mirror of character.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Oh yea that's right. Wonder if its a coincidence that 0bama happen to show up there just before the ruling?? Hmm 

You can expect the puppet master to be just on the edge of the drama he's directing from now until Trump is gone.  The funny thing is that if Trump were actually the monster he's made out to be, Oby's grape would have been popped weeks ago   Technically, the president could over rule the judiciary and force the issue if he chose to.  He'd be sued for years but so what?  Big whoop.  If he's going to get anything positive done for the nation he's going to have to be as belligerent and creative as the obstructionists  that are opposing him.  This is an all-out fight to the political death of one party or the other.  If Trump loses to the globalists, we are done as a free nation.  I guess that then the Left can be schooled in what a REAL insurgency looks like.  As an aside, I was coming out of a Metro station in D.C. yesterday and 3 guys were getting loud and animated about how "a race war is what we need".  There are stickers and signs all over the place with nasty insults to the new president.  I say let them bray, all the while he's setting in motion a budget that is likely to can thousands of those who are unneeded in government.  I don't actually expect him to prevail but at least those on the conservative (NOT Republican) side will be able to dispel their last hopes of avoiding the violence that must come, eventually.  There will be no doubt left by the time the Congress finish with him and his/OUR agenda.  THAT will be the real "phase two".

[Yamato]

I love Donald Trump! 

There, is my character improved now?

If there was an imminent threat of attack, then this ban would make sense.  Unfortunately it's impossible to believe that there isn't an imminent threat from any of the countries that attacked us on 9/11 when one is citing 9/11 as the reason for the EO in the first place.  

It fails on logical grounds, it fails on constitutional grounds, it fails on statutory grounds.  

We thought we could remove Iraq from the prohibbie list and slip it through?  Good grief.  

Obama doing something illegal is no excuse for Trump.   Obama doing anything wrong at all is no excuse for Trump because if we followed that logic, a murderer would be an excuse for murder.   And that's not just figurative.  It's literal when it comes to Presidents.

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Yamato said:

I love Donald Trump! 

There, is my character improved now?

If there was an imminent threat of attack, then this ban would make sense.  Unfortunately it's impossible to believe that there isn't an imminent threat from any of the countries that attacked us on 9/11 when one is citing 9/11 as the reason for the EO in the first place.  

It fails on logical grounds, it fails on constitutional grounds, it fails on statutory grounds.  

We thought we could remove Iraq from the prohibbie list and slip it through?  Good grief.  

Obama doing something illegal is no excuse for Trump.   Obama doing anything wrong at all is no excuse for Trump because if we followed that logic, a murderer would be an excuse for murder.   And that's not just figurative.  It's literal when it comes to Presidents.

I can respect your logic.  Can you admit that what is happening to this president is a partisan lynching with the eager media handling the rope?  Regardless the "truths" each of us think we know, I think we're being steered into a conflict where American Muslims are going to be caught in a cross-fire.  I'm not sure where you hail from but around my part of the country we defend our families and our freedoms and most of us won't be too interested in observing laws when the body politic starts openly ridiculing them and breaking them on a whim.  Militant, fundamentalist Islam is a problem for the whole world.  The numbers that are involved belie the seriousness of the challenge.  Remember the asymmetric aspect of it all?  19 guys with a plan and the willingness to die brought us to our knees, briefly, 15 years ago.  19.  There are an estimated 100 million or more of these twisted fanatics around the globe who all are quite willing to die for the cause.  Only foolish men ignore or minimize that fact.  

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no "imminent threat" of attack?  What do you base that on?  On Monday night, Sept. 10, 2001, when I went to bed there had been nothing to suggest any imminent attack.  ALL of the so-called lone wolf attacks gave no warning.  It is preposterous to make that statement.

[Yamato]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

I can respect your logic.  Can you admit that what is happening to this president is a partisan lynching with the eager media handling the rope?  Regardless the "truths" each of us think we know, I think we're being steered into a conflict where American Muslims are going to be caught in a cross-fire.  I'm not sure where you hail from but around my part of the country we defend our families and our freedoms and most of us won't be too interested in observing laws when the body politic starts openly ridiculing them and breaking them on a whim.  Militant, fundamentalist Islam is a problem for the whole world.  The numbers that are involved belie the seriousness of the challenge.  Remember the asymmetric aspect of it all?  19 guys with a plan and the willingness to die brought us to our knees, briefly, 15 years ago.  19.  There are an estimated 100 million or more of these twisted fanatics around the globe who all are quite willing to die for the cause.  Only foolish men ignore or minimize that fact.  

 

The anti-Muslim narrative put aside, there always was partisanship, there still is, there probably always will be.  That's no reason to pay any attention to it andy.  It's a great reason not to.

 

Quote

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no "imminent threat" of attack?

I didn't.  I think that because of the cause, there is a risk of effect.   We are a nation of laws however.

 

Quote

On Monday night, Sept. 10, 2001, when I went to bed there had been nothing to suggest any imminent attack.  ALL of the so-called lone wolf attacks gave no warning.  It is preposterous to make that statement.

And on March 16, 2017 I have no idea why any of those 9/11 countries of origin aren't imminent threats.  The EO is not logical.

[Claire.]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Yes, I noticed that.  You based that determination on what, exactly?  Did your intelligence team give you an up to date briefing on world events, trends and dangers?  I get that you guys loathe Trump.  That's fine with me.  I loathe Obama and probably always will do.  But when a citizen or even an active Federal judge makes that kind of decision without the same level of intelligence information, it is an outrageous political statement, not a fact based conclusion.  If, tomorrow, an immigrant that just got here from one of those countries, ANY of those countries, and killed multiple citizens in an attack, would you admit you were wrong to judge the way you did?  Careful, this is a mirror of character.

I based that determination on the evidence. Nothing has happened. But if indeed a threat was imminent, the Trump administration would have used that as their justification for the travel ban.They did not. Instead, they came up with a flimsy and unconvincing justification for it. Furthermore, Trump did not have the ban vetted by Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Surely Trump would have sought operational guidance during a time of imminent crisis?

Furthermore, what makes you so certain there is intelligence suggesting an emergency situation?  Do you have information the rest of us do not? Or does the possibility of a threat count as an emergency in your view? If the answer is yes, then why not ban ALL countries from which a threat is likely?

Oh and by the way, according to some officials, internal data undercuts Trump's argument for a travel ban: The Washington Post

[Yamato]

3 hours ago, and then said:

McConnel needs to get Gorsuch seated.  If it takes a nuclear option then so be it.  The party that lost the election still seems to be running the country's agenda.  The hell with that AND them. Since when can a district judge veto the executive order of a sitting president on security issues?  Can you imagine the bloody outcry if the tables were turned?  Either he is the executive or he isn't.  He needs to move boldly to kick this trash to the curb where they belong.  Obstructionist b*******.

You think this will pass the Supreme Court with Gorsuch on board?   Which five votes do you think you have?   If the Trump administration had quickly and timely appealed their original EO all the way up while stamping their feet how critical it is to our safety and security, the Supreme Court would have reviewed it by now.  

They didn't like their chances and they surrendered to the courts and a month went by while they dragged their feet leaving the OP order in zombie limbo.  Must not be that critical. 

The law says point blank you can't discriminate against countries.  It's a moot order dead on arrival for that reason alone.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

That's no reason to pay any attention to it andy.  It's a great reason not to.

Right.  Nothing new here, no different level of attack.  Obama and Bush were subjected to the same thing, right?  Yes, I think if a constitutional non-activist is seated, the EO would pass with no problem.  The excuses being used are ridiculous and unprecedented.  The bottom line is that these b******* care more about removing a duly elected president than they care about the nation.  It's obvious and it's a whole different ballgame.  We'll just have to see how it plays out.  The idea that it's not important because they had to take time to craft a bullet proof EO is insulting.  Care to guess what would happen to a third EO?  The Left seem to control most of the courts and they will hamstring his every move.  This is unprecedented no matter what pablum you want to feed the rest.  Frankly, I'd welcome the day that they get refocused by a gentle reminder that they have skin in the game, too.

[Agent0range]

Fact:  More toddlers with guns have killed more people in the United States than citizens from these 6 countries in the past however many decades you want to cite.  How's that for a threat?

[Yamato]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Right.  Nothing new here, no different level of attack.  Obama and Bush were subjected to the same thing, right?  Yes, I think if a constitutional non-activist is seated, the EO would pass with no problem.  The excuses being used are ridiculous and unprecedented.  The bottom line is that these b******* care more about removing a duly elected president than they care about the nation.  It's obvious and it's a whole different ballgame.  We'll just have to see how it plays out.  The idea that it's not important because they had to take time to craft a bullet proof EO is insulting.  Care to guess what would happen to a third EO?  The Left seem to control most of the courts and they will hamstring his every move.  This is unprecedented no matter what pablum you want to feed the rest.  Frankly, I'd welcome the day that they get refocused by a gentle reminder that they have skin in the game, too.

Sure, the law stands the same as it did for the 2nd one.  QE Infinity, might as well have EO Infinity too. 

I'm sure there are people who would want to damage the nation to see Trump thrown down.  Don't let those people influence what you think.  That thinking is not a valid basis for you or I to draw any conclusion.

Americans can usually get the First Amendment right.  But as we're having problems with even that, we're in big trouble in this country.  Our rights are doomed if we don't rid the country of these contraptions of the unconstitutional nanny state

[Yamato]

Trump's E.O.s

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Trump's E.O.s

And you're okay with the Democrat wall, are you?

 

[Agent0range]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

And you're okay with the Democrat wall, are you?

 

Drop the partisan crap for one minute.  When you sign an executive order banning citizens from countries that are responsible for zero deaths on American soil in 40 some years in the same week you make it legal to allow people with mental illnesses to purchase guns, do you really have the safety of Americans in mind?  Or is it just playing into the racism and hate of your fan base?  And no, I'm not saying all Trump supporters are racists...but all racists are..well, you get the point.

[Uncle Sam]

Might want to watch Obama... he is definitely not laying back with Trump trying to issue travel ban.

Obama in Hawaii

[Myles]

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Drop the partisan crap for one minute.  When you sign an executive order banning citizens from countries that are responsible for zero deaths on American soil in 40 some years in the same week you make it legal to allow people with mental illnesses to purchase guns, do you really have the safety of Americans in mind?  Or is it just playing into the racism and hate of your fan base?  And no, I'm not saying all Trump supporters are racists...but all racists are..well, you get the point.

Speaking of crap....................