I'm afraid that many in America today would not even welcome their own
ancestors, if they saw them on the street.The main difference is
that our ancestors made life decisions, and sacrifices, for future generations.
Many, today, only think of themselves. Immigrants are a vital part
of America. As FDR said, the "only thing we have to fear is
fear itself." Frightened people are dangerous and behave more like animals
than children of God. I question whether America can still call itself the home
of the brave.
Once we get our new Supreme Court appointment this sort of political activism
can stop!! The constitution and government of the people by the people is broken
right now until this nonsense stops from these Obama-judges. The president does
have the authority to halt immigration and the supreme court must rule and stop
these lower court activisits from playing political hate-Trump games.
I find it interesting that reports that are contrary to this article are not
part of local media and of course the MSM.A U.S. Federal circuit
court judge Nathaniel Gorton upheld Trumps travel ban. An ACLU atty asked why
when the president has made past derogatory remarks towards muslims.The judge replied, "am I to take the words of an executive at any point
before or after an election as part of this executive order". The Judge
further asked if muslims were mentioned in the EO? The atty said no.The judge asked where did the list of 7 countries come from? The atty replied
from the law passed in 2015 that was amended in 2016 regarding citizens of those
7 countries tied to terrorist attacks in Europe at the time.The
judge said only 12.5% of the worlds muslims come from those 7 countries. The
then said, "the EO provides reasonable and concievable state of facts
concerning national security that could provide a rational basis for the
classification".As ordered, the court declines to impose any
injuctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order on jan 28,
2017.This proves judicial overreach in non-party injuction rulings
nationwide, see my prev post's.
I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of labeling this latest court action as
'judicial overreach' or complaining that a District Judge made a
'national' injunction on Trump's Executive Order. When a Texas
District judge ordered a 'national' injunction against Obama's
Executive Order on Transgender rights, and nary a word of complaint from the
current crowd of complainers.Taxes... Social Security for years was
not presented as a 'tax'... guess what... it has been a tax ever since
it was put into place. Medicare is a tax. The tax associated ACA is a tax.If it were up to me, I'd pay taxes for medical and old age support
far sooner than military adventures in far of lands, making such a mess that one
has to deal with refugees in the first place.Refugees. The US
provided safe haven for 100s of thousands of Vietnamese Refugees in the 1970s,
with general benefit to all, despite the fact that 'some could be crypto
communists'.I think many even found permanent homes in Utah.
I really hope citizens of this great country realise what is going on hear.This type of ruling coming down from a 9th circuit district judge is
unprecidented in the fact that a district judge has no authority to pass ruling
beyond that of his own district. Non-party nationwide injunctions are not
supposed to happen, its called Principals of Comity. In this case a district
court is compeled not to grant national relief to non party plaintiffs beyond
those plaintiffs set before them. In doing so it would create tensions and
confusion in other districts, in case where a moderately liberal judge upheld
Trump's executive order in Boston.Further more the constitution
does not protect citizens of other countries it never has. Immigrants or
refugee's does not matter, the constitution only takes affect when you are
here, and individuals who are not citizens do not get full constitutional
rights, although the left wants us to believe that.Therefore
president Trump is within his right constitutionally to pass executive orders to
protect this country even from percieved threats no matter how controversial
they are, even when its regarding immigration other presidents have.
All of these comments and post's are a perfect example of how devisive this
country has become, thanks to the previous administration, and liberal school of
thought.Lets let every tom, dick and harry from other countries
where their prodominant religion specifically states to kill the infidel (thats
us), and allow them into our country and take over like rats from a colonial
scooner. Look at Dearborn Michigan folks if you havnt heard what is going there
thanks to our liberal emmigration laws then maybe you should go pay a visit.Lets put it this way, Dearborn Michigan is little downtown Baghdad and
if you are not a muslim then you are not welcome there. They do not allow other
religions to prosolyte on the streets there, they discriminate against everyone
not a muslim. This is what we are allowing to enter the country.I'm fine with emmigration, but we should expect emmigrants to
comply with our laws and assymilate into our society.Why is it that
I hear its just the liberal judges that are shooting down the travel bans. If it
was so controversial and unconstitutional then why arent we hearing rulings from
other judges that dont pass judgement based on political slant.
@Military Mom.A total red herring. But, I'll play.Of the
93 gun deaths per day, 58 killed themselves. 1 is purely an accident, and 1 is
suicide by police. Of the 33 remaining deaths, the vast majority occur in
certain parts of inner cities most everyone knows to avoid. Many of these
incidents involve alcohol or drugs. Additionally, minorities are involved at a
much higher rate than their percentage of the population.So, unless
you live in a dangerous part of the inner city, use drugs or alcohol, and are
not white, your probability of being killed by gun are really, really
significantly less than you imply. When you look at the details
behind the red herring statistics you cite, even they don't make the point
you intended to make.
Just a few inconvenient facts in response to some of the comments here:-since 2001, the chances of being killed by a refugee in the U.S. are 1 in
3.64 billion-93 people die of gun violence in the U.S. every dayMy chances of being killed by a fellow citizen with a gun in a theater
or church or school or anywhere else are exponentially higher than being killed
by a refugee (about 1 in 25,000). If the president is really concerned about
keeping me safe (and not just banning Muslims and other refugees), his
priorities should be elsewhere.-
ABC News reported on the six month Iraqi refugee freeze in 2013, it took place
in 2011. "As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department
stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told
ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as
interpreters and intelligence assets."Trumps executive action
was the same as Obama's Presidential memorandum that Obama used to create
the DACA, this was not a trial, but a judicial review to see if it was legal, or
it hurt Hawaii. The judge ruled it hurt Hawaii.
@RRB"What Trump said was in the heat of the election, the judge
has to decide the case on merit. What Trump said was irrelevant to his current
ban. That is what the judge has to rule on."Its called
"Party Admission" which permits one party to offer the out-of-court
statement of any opponent party. As I stated before if Trumps attorneys wanted
to object to the party admission the time to do so would have been at the time
in court rather then by third parties expos factos in a DN comment section. I
would suspect the reason they did not do so was because they now the law and
know the law and know that his comments were admissible and also know that it
would weigh in the judges final decision. not sure how you get a
reevaluation is the same as a ban and therefore "making your point,"
When Saudi Arabia is added to the list, it will prove trump means what he says
about potential terrorists. Until then, it's just a Muslim ban.
For those who work for someone else or whose kids attend school (most of us)
adjusting our schedules is not so simple. Businesses adjusting their hours
would also create major issues for those whose business requires interactions
outside the immediate community.Those who suggest others change
schedules, can just as easily change their own schedule to ignore the time
change, no?Most polls that show a dislike for "DST" actually
reveal a dislike to adjusting the clocks. Most people would like to stay on DST
year round. But the federal government doesn't permit that.States can stay on standard time year round, or they can observe the clock
change.Arizona is further south than Utah and so has days of more
consistent length throughout the year. The extreme heat also means that much of
Arizona culture is geared toward recreation after the sun sets and things cool
off. Most of Utah culture prefers to have daylight after work for outdoor
activities.DST year round would be great.Making the
change from between Standard Time and DST on Friday instead of Saturday is an
"Hey Gary OYou infer Trump is a loser. Please list your
accomplishments so that we can compare yours with President Trump."I'll bite. A successful marriage to one woman. As wise person once
said, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
TolstoyObama put a freeze on Iraq's (Muslim) for 6 months,
longer than Trump wanted. Thanks for proving my point, the press just ignored it
and Carter's (also Muslim). What Trump said was in the heat of
the election, the judge has to decide the case on merit. What Trump said was
irrelevant to his current ban. That is what the judge has to rule on. Democrats are willing to risk national security to gain a few brownie points
@RRB Obama ordered a reevaluation of a specific group refugees
following a specific report that certain terrorist had tried to infiltrated the
Iraqi system and more importantly he did not go on nation television, radio
stations and mass rallies calling for a total Muslim ban and then try to
"walk it back," to a refugee ban.
President Carter banned Iranians, who were Muslim. Obama put a temporary ban on
Iraq, a Muslim country. This is cherry picking. They know that without a full
Supreme Court it will probably not be overturned. It's a slap in the face
to Trump, and with the majority of Americans wanting a pause on refugees until
the vetting can be tightened, it just makes the resentment grow. There are many more Muslim countries that are not banned, proof that the ban
is regioal not religious.
@barfolomew Just to help clarify my earlier post"There's a concept in the Rules of Evidence called 'Party
Admission,' " said longtime lawyer Mark MacDougall. "When you make
a statement that's unfriendly to your case, it can be used against you in
court. That's why all good lawyers tell their clients to keep their mouths
shut. That's your first conversation."
Countries on ban list ID'd by Obama administration as those who don't
have the ability to provide verifiable information to adequately pass a back
ground check by U.S. standards.Most Muslim countries not included on
ban list and they still are able to immigrate from their respective countries
due to verifiable background information. There are 49 Muslim majority countries
in the world - saw 1 statistic stating 51 muslim countries in the world. 6
included in President Trump's ban, that's approx 12% folks.Media/liberals in this country dishonestly continuing to propagate talking
points on this issue to sway public opinion. I don't see a
problem here.Go Trump!! MAGA!!
@barfolomew I understand what you are saying, however as a part of
their argument the sates refuted the claims by the administration that the order
was based on national security interest they argued that past statements by the
president and his segregates demonstrated that the order was based in animus
rather then national interest. If the administration wanted that strike that
argument from the Judges consideration the time to objet would have been when
the argument was made so the judge could rule on its admissibility. Once it
becomes a part of the arguments accepted then it is not only acceptable but
expected that the judge will take those arguments into consideration in their
@Ernest "Give specific examples: How & when did President Obama lie to
get around the Constitution?"I said Obama used lies and deceit.
I already gave one example. He claimed ACA was not a tax (to sway public
opinion) but the SC ruled it is a tax. We could get into dozens of issues
involving free speech, the military, etc. He used XO's when he knew the
other two branches of government would not support him. The problem
is that liberals and conservatives have differing opinions of what constitutes
honesty. I believe things like candor and transparency are included. Liberals
will defend Obama on any issue no matter how obvious his lies and deceit.
I think when I read some of these comments printed here that this country has
gone completely nuts. European nations (Germany, for one) regret allowing all
the Muslim refugees in their borders because those people ultimately want SHARIA
LAW! That's the bottom line!Good grief! Get a grip! I want to
uphold our Constitution. When interviewed, many of these same folks right here
in the U.S. truly want to be governed by Sharia Law. I say if they don't
want to assimilate as U.S. citizens and abide by our established laws,
don't allow them into our country. i.e., 911, Boston Bombers, San
Bernadino, Fort Hood, etc. Our former president did a great job of
dividing our beautiful country...class against class, law enforcement against
our citizens, poor vs. wealth, LBGT against normal, any minority against anyone
else, liberal against conservative, entitlements, snowflakes. President Trump
was elected by people to bring us back together. Give him a chance. And let him protect us in the mean time!
Mr. trump the re-Publican heart, soul and face of that Political Machine/Cartel
throws a tantrum because he can't bend the COTUS to suit his needs.Thank goodness Americans have a judiciary which does not function as a
rubber stamp for trump who has the entire re-Publican Political Machine/Cartel
scared spitless of him and his base.
Hey Gary OYou infer Trump is a loser. Please list your accomplishments so
that we can compare yours with President Trump.
Crits 1Trads 0But Trump is no quitter. Stay tuned for the next
round.Meanwhile, did you hear Trump ordered all refugees to Hawaii
RRB quoted: "U.S. CODE: See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.
But they were cherry picking the scripture they wanted and ignored
the "whole."...another section of the law clearly bans
discrimination against certain classes. Section 202(a)(1)(A) of
the INA states that except in cases specified by Congress in section
no person shall receive any preference or priority or be
discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the
person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.While section 212 grants the president a general power to exclude
certain immigrants, section 202 limits this power. Note that this section does
not prevent discrimination based on religious affiliation, political belief, or
ideology, but Trump’s new policy would run afoul of at least one if not
all three of those last three restrictions—nationality, place of birth, or
place of residence—depending on how it was applied. That's why they're judges, they understand the"Whole" law
and how it is, or is not, constitutional, but if you want drop outs on the radio
or in alt right news to inform you than you will continue to be misled.
The White House is essentially trying to replicate the executive order struck
down earlier. They admit that. It's tinkering with the letter of the law to
skirt the law itself.
@husker1:Give specific examples: How & when did President Obama lie to
get around the Constitution? Those "activist judges" that conservatives
hate so much would have prevented it. Because, it's their jobs to do so.
So, be specific, when and how did President Obama lie to get around the
Constitution?The thing I've noticed about you guys is that you make
vague claims but can never back them up with facts when pushed. That becomes the
way the fake news network and AM radio victimizes the right wing, make vague
claims that never include facts.
The non college educated, extremist demographic once again ranting regarding
"activist judges". Possibly partake in a university level political
science class. Better yet obtain a law degree!
@ Prometheus Platypus"This was all on Trump and his big mouth,
quit blaming the judge for playing back what Trump and his surrogates said
during the campaign, and using his own words against him."I
think you've missed the point. A judge is obligated to rule on the merits
of the case. In this instance, the merits of the Executive Order. Even more to
the point, in this case, he was obligated to rule whether or not the order
harmed the Hawaiian economy since that was what they claimed. To base his ruling
on something the President said in the past should not be considered. How many times have judges thrown out evidence in criminal cases that brought
up a suspect's past record or things he might have said in the past? Judges
will routinely rule that the trial/hearing will be based on the merits of the
case and not past circumstances. This (and the previous case against
the prior Executive Order) were purely political rulings and have nothing to do
with the Constitution of the United States of America.
"U.S. CODE: See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class
of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem
necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants
or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem
to be appropriate. "It's not Trump this or Trump that,
it's Democrats playing politics.
First, everyone really should read the brief before commenting. and, second, it
was the State of Hawaii that is looking for "relief". Not foreigners,
not Muslims etc. This is how our court system works. Do you expect the judges
to just say.. "oh well Trump said it so I must agree". This Judge was
actually following the law (if you understand the law). Hawaii believes the
"tourists" are already screened properly and imply that it is because
the are Muslim that Trump has signed this 2nd order.. If we don't have
what Trump said to rely on, then what do we rely on? Trump already said he
wanted to keep Muslims from the USA. What if Trump said I want to ban Mormons
and the judge ruled it was unconstitutional? Would you still call him an
@Ernest "For eight years conservative kept claiming President Obama was
ignoring the Constitution yet they can't point to anything
specific."Obama knew how to get around the Constitution with
lies and deceit. See Obamacare. It's not a tax...but it is.
Why does Donald Trump lose so often?The answer is obvious,
isn't it? . . . "He's a loser." - Donald J
Trump“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the
highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,
it's not your fault” – Donald J TrumpHey Vermonter
-RE: "These lower court judges are effectively erasing US
borders, at least for politically-correct groups of people."Ha!Meanwhile, perennially INCORRECT “groups of people”
respect and revere our incredibly weak and ineffective illegitimate President,
Donald (I admire Putin) Trump.How can such a brilliant man (in the
words of Donald Trump) not be a winner?
I'm not sure what the right ruling is supposed to be on this. I feel like
the first version was supposed to be rejected but this one is supposed to be
allowed. I think it's really bad policy that would only cause more harm
than it's allegedly trying to prevent, but just being a stupid idea
doesn't make it unconstitutional.
@bass679.This is different than Obamacare. Several congress-people who
participated in crafting the Obamacare clearly said numerous times that payment
to the government for those not purchasing health insurance was a
"penalty" and not a "tax." (An Obamacare "tax" was
politically unacceptable most voters back then.) Chief Justice
Roberts, eager to avoid a political fight with President Obama, reasoned that
the Obamacare "penalty" functioned like a "tax" and was
therefore a tax. (If the Obamacare-required payment was a "penalty," it
would have been unconstitutional and whole law would have been invalidated.) What CJ Roberts did not do was look at previous public statements by
those who drafted Obamacare. Had he done so, Roberts would have been compelled
to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.For Judge Watson and
Robarts to do what CJ Roberts did, they would have had to say that the Trump
travel ban functions like a Muslim ban, which is pretty absurd. All Muslims
with proper visas can travel freely to the US, and the vast majority of Muslims
with no visa can apply for refugee status and be granted such status if their
circumstances warrant it.
"Boston Bombers at least one was a Refugee."Yeah - he was
from Russia. Trump does too much business with Russia to protect us from Russia
- you know, kinda like Saudi Arabia. If you think that Trump will ever include
Russia in a travel ban - I have a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl that I will
sell you below invoice.
Sorry Donald but nobody ever said being an Autocrat would be easy.
Look, the executive order is unnecessary... refugees go through a very intense
vetting process already. However, we are on terribly shaky ground when judges
get to make pronouncements on law based upon how they feel about something the
president said during the campaign. Trump is right on one point here: this is
judicial overreach. Constitutional protections don't apply to non-citizens
(immigrants) and the person who brought the suit has no standing in the legal
case. The judge contorted the requirements so that the case could be brought
before him, and then contorted the constitution to make it mean something it
clearly does not.Trump's executive order, again, seems really stupid.
But this judge is trampling constitutional law in order to fight something that
really won't make much difference in the end. The courts are really out of
order on this one.
For eight years conservative kept claiming President Obama was ignoring the
Constitution yet they can't point to anything specific.Now that trump
is actively attacking the Constitution at ever step, they suddenly have amnesia
and ignore the fact that the Courts must uphold the Constitution and not a tweet
from the president. Let's be honest, conservatives only claim a love
for the Constitution when a Dem is in the White House. When a repub tramples all
over it, they suddenly blame "activist judges" for simply doing their
the White House needs to fast forward this to the US Supreme Court and bypass
all these liberal federal activist judges. This is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions
needs to take the lead on this and just put this to rest. Enough with the silly
This was all on Trump and his big mouth, quit blaming the judge for playing back
what Trump and his surrogates said during the campaign, and using his own words
against him.How many times do we have to hear you trump fans, blame
everyone but the person who responsible for his own problems. The
"He didn't say that" after we listened to him say it, or watched
him shout it, isn't convincing anyone but those who still trust the most
dishonest president ever. The thinly veiled attempt at a "Muslim
Ban" by changing the name, is something a child would try and get past a
parent, why do we keep tolerating such a petulant child as our president.
Airnaut you say:The only 'muslim' terrorists from other countries were
the 9/11 terrorists, who were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is not even on
the list.Wrong on many counts. Somali Refugee Sept 2016 in St Cloud
MN. knife attack wounds nine Americans.Somali Refugee Ohio State
University. Car attack and knife attack wounds eleven Americans. Boston Bombers at least one was a Refugee.There are more.
Words have meaning and humans have Civil Rights.trump cannot get around
either of those.@JMHO: what are the consequences going to be? None of
those countries have ever produced terrorists who have attacked the US. Every
country already has extensive background checks before they can come.This
is all about a Muslim ban because trump voters don't like Muslims. A
tweet from the president is not law. We can only hope in the next four years he
finally figures that out.
A defeat for Trump is a defeat for America.The people of Norway,
Sweden, France, Germany, England, and Australia would all agree.
So grateful that we still have judges who uphold the constitution. At this point
they are the only ones protecting us from an overzealous authoritarian executive
branch. God bless political moderates who recognize the dangers of extremism on
all sides of the political spectrum. And God Bless America!
@JMHOThey did, that's actually why it was upheld. During the
deliberations on the ACA there were several elements that the court said were
invalid as written but that their intent was clearly different based on what had
been said by the writers of the law.
It's nice to see him get smacked down on this solution in search of a
problem. He tagged it early on as a Muslim ban, and so did Rudy G. Maybe
bragging about xenophobia wasn't a good idea, but I doubt he'll learn.
I don't understand why the courts consider what President Trump said on the
campaign trail on this ruling, but said it had to ignore what President Obama
said about the ACA before it passed.Seems like this will be similar
to the nuclear option. The liberals are all happy now, but the unintended
consequences down the road are going to be outrageous.
Liberal-leaning legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz said the same exact Executive
Order issued by Barack Obama would be upheld by the courts reasoning since Obama
never said he wanted to ban Muslims.The argument that the partial
travel ban on immigrants from the six countries named is going to hurt the
Hawaii economy is specious. Now if they decided to ban travelers from Japan and
Asia, they would have quite significant point.
President Trump's travel bans might not have even been challenged if he
hadn't stated so many times that he was going to prevent Muslims from
coming into the country. And in the court challenges that have happened there
would have been less cause for suspicion if he hadn't made so many
anti-Muslim statements. President Trump appears to have "shot himself in
the foot" on this one.
"Thank goodness there are three branches of government. That way a power
hungry person cannot exceed the scope of his or her office."Yep,
that sure saved us these past 8 years, when President Obama repeatedly suffered
9-0 smackdowns at the hands of the Supreme Court when he grossly overreached his
authority on issues of immigration, religious freedom, and environmental
regulation.In fact, the Obama Administration lost more cases at the
Supreme Court than any other president in recent US history. He suffered more
unanimous losses (23) than George Bush (15), that supposed Despoiler of the
American Way.His overall winning percentage in cases argued by his
administration in front of the Supreme Court was a pathetic 48%, compared to
Bush (60%), Clinton (63%), Bush Sr. (70%), and Reagan (75%).Either
the Democrats have worse lawyers than Republicans, or the Obama Administration
was exceptionally power-hungry and needed to be restrained more often by the
Those 'thinking' Trump is protecting you from evil terrorists with
this ban are being played.This is not ONE shred of evidence showing
refugees cause terrorism.The judges ruled based on Donald
Trump's own words - 'a total ban on Muslims'.The only
'muslim' terrorists from other countries were the 9/11 terrorists, who
were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is not even on the list.The
ban lacks legal merit.
I think this just shows how politically slanted the judiciary is in every
aspect. After eight years of political appointees to the bench it is leaning
far to the left in activism. It does not bode well for the Republic when
decisions, such as this one, absolutely flies in the face of the law.
@ute alumni I don't see why everyone thinks that immigrants and
refugees don't already go through an intense vetting process. The vetting
process in the United States already takes 1-3 years, begins with a vetting at
the UN and then goes through several US security agencies. Honestly, I
don't know how much more extreme we could go without violating the
It's heartening to see liberals like UtahBlueDevil being honest enough to
recognize that even though Trump might have lost the battle, he is going to
eventually win the war.There is nothing unconstitutional about
restricting immigration, and eventually higher courts will realize that they
have no authority to overturn this policy and put a stop to these court cases.
Especially since previous presidents have instituted identical travel bans in
the past with nary a peep of objection.In the meantime, the majority
of the voters will see these liberal judges acting out of pure partisan spite by
blocking the popular will on border security, and trust the Democrats even less
on immigration issues. As I have predicted several times here,
Trump will win in a landslide in 2020. And the Congress will remain firmly in
Republican hands in 2018. The Democrats are slowly sliding into irrelevance.
Muslim Ban 2.0 is less lawless and haphazardly implemented than Muslim Ban 1.0,
but it's still a Muslim ban and as such is unconstitutional.Judges don't even need to go back to Trump calling for a "total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Muslim Ban 2.0
tips its hand by citing "honor killings."Also, the bans,
even when struck down, have already done their damage and made us less safe by
feeding the narrative that the West is at war with Islam.
Judicial over reach pure and simple. Anyone who reads the law can not see any
ambiguity. It is the President that has the discretion to ban anyone. It
is really a treat to know that Hawaii economy is more important than our safety.
It is not if, but when we will have terroris attacks in this Country. When that
happens I hope that these Judges and all who are fighting this are personally
affected. I am hoping that the President will use the most extreme vetting
Trump supporters say the judge in this case is a liberal or activist judge.
Trump would say "so-called". Maybe he is just doing his job upholding
the laws of this land and the constitution. Thank goodness there are
three branches of government. That way a power hungry person cannot exceed the
scope of his or her office.
Trump has really cooked himself on this one. Guiliani's big mouth on Fox
News made Trump's intentions evident. The Constitution appears to be a
major headache for Trump. By constantly blasting the role of the judicial
branch, Trump continues to display no understanding of democracy.
The role of a judge is to interpret law according to the constitution.
Politically activist judges causes anarchy. Those that are gleeful of this are
also going to live to regret their short sighted underdeveloped understanding of
the constitution. I wonder how happy they'll be when someone they know is
injured or killed because unvettef terrorists come into this country. Hatred
appears to be blinding.
No surprise. Open borders proponents (largely liberal Democrats) went forum
shopping to the most liberal federal courts in the nation. Now
Trump will need to chase this one to the Supreme Court. If I were Trump, I
would wait until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed. Otherwise he will likely get a 4-4
ruling that lets the lower court rulings stand (remember, the 4 liberals at
SCOTUS vote in lockstep on these politically-charged issues). Even with Gorsuch
on the Court, the ultimate decision will be in swing-voter, Justice
Kennedy's hands. (Oh, and Justice Ginsburg should recuse herself since she
publically said she despises everything about Trump and would appear to
motivated by animus. But, she won't.)These lower court judges
are effectively erasing US borders, at least for politically-correct groups of
people.Trump should have tacitly invited someone to bring a
challenge to his travel ban in the 11th Circuit. Trump needs to listen to the
experts on how the legal game is played. As it is right now, Trump is getting
I do agree that Trump is learning that their is a big difference between being
President of a constitutionally controlled country and being President of a
closely held private corporation. He doesn't have the final say as
President of the US.... the constitution does. That said, I think
Trump may have lost this individual skirmish, but ultimately he will be able to
restrict the movement of people from these nations. We need to help those who
are the victims of those who would abuse religion to gain personal power. But
due diligence and caution should also be equally weighed.
America is not Trumpland.America is not Trump Inc.God Bless
The headline should read "Activist Judge Steps Over The Line By Stopping
President Trump From Protecting Americans."
So according to this judge, everyone in the world has a Constitutional right to
live in the USA.Wouldn't that make every immigration law
illegal, including Trump's border wall? Does that make sense? America has
no sovereign right to protect its own borders?
Trump is slowly finding out that he was elected President. Not King. And, he
doesn't like it.