DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Or just add Portugal to the six. They'd still block it, because "that's what he campaigned on!" "So-called President" Trump is learning that what candidate Trump said has consequences. Another self-inflicted wound. You want to spend five minutes thinking about how utterly !@#$ed the country will be if the courts decide rhetoric on the campaign trail carries the same weight as law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 They'd still block it, because "that's what he campaigned on!" You want to spend five minutes thinking about how utterly !@#$ed the country will be if the courts decide rhetoric on the campaign trail carries the same weight as law? This sort of extra-judicial over-reach is absolutely terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 This sort of extra-judicial over-reach is absolutely terrifying. Even more terrifying is how many people will support it because it's against Trump, not even realizing what it is they're supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Even more terrifying is how many people will support it because it's against Trump, not even realizing what it is they're supporting. Apply his logic to Obamacare (it's not a tax, it's a penalty...no, wait...by golly it IS a tax) and THEN the anti-Trump people would maybe understand. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 They'd still block it, because "that's what he campaigned on!" You want to spend five minutes thinking about how utterly !@#$ed the country will be if the courts decide rhetoric on the campaign trail carries the same weight as law? It wasn't just rhetoric, it was a policy proposal which he then asked Giuliani how to legally implement once he took office. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.064817701d41 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Even more terrifying is how many people will support it because it's against Trump, not even realizing what it is they're supporting. Partisan or not, nobody gives a crap about precedent. Nobody looks down the road. Nobody realizes that there's political karma. Depressingly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 It wasn't just rhetoric, it was a policy proposal which he then asked Giuliani how to legally implement once he took office. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.064817701d41 “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 17, 2017 Author Share Posted March 17, 2017 What ?? Pasta / Liberals took a quote and left the rest out ? unheard of........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) You want to spend five minutes thinking about how utterly !@#$ed the country will be if the courts decide rhetoric on the campaign trail carries the same weight as law?I guess I'm not understanding, isn't this how courts work? They rely on evidence. If Trump and his associates are constantly talking about a Muslim ban, and they're not even being subtle about it, why would that evidence not be used in a court of law? It goes to prove that the intent of the law is unconstitutional. I never understood why people thought his second travel ban would pass muster, but I didn't understand all the arguments too well to be honest. My interpretation of that whole quote, and the court agrees, is "Trump told me he wanted a Muslim ban done in a legal manner, so we found a way to do it without calling it a Muslim ban." Which implies the intent was to discriminate against Muslims, they just wanted to hide the intent. I mean he literally comes right out and says what Trump really wanted. Imagine a more competent administration had done this, if would have easily gotten through the courts. The Trump admin messed up bad. Now you have Trump going to rallies saying things like "we should just bring back the first ban and expand it, that's what I wanted to do in the first place." I guarantee statements like that will be used in future court arguments. It is clear to me Trump doesn't actually care about protecting the country, he just likes to hear cheers and applause. I am not against the idea of having stronger vetting or outright immigration bans from dangerous countries, so I hate that he's ruined a chance to try it out. Edited March 17, 2017 by HappyDays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I guess I'm not understanding, isn't this how courts work? They rely on evidence. If Trump and his associates are constantly talking about a Muslim ban, and they're not even being subtle about it, why would that evidence not be used in a court of law? It goes to prove that the intent of the law is unconstitutional. No, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. The courts are supposed to rely on and interpret the law. They are not supposed to judge on the intent of the parties involved, particularly when that intent is represented by statements that are not evidence involved in the lawsuit (which the Supreme Court has ruled on, very recently). And there is nowhere in the law where it's stated an executive order is unconstitutional because the executive issuing the order is an inveterate !@#$. Nor does the fact that the courts have a sad recent history of inventing law on the spot (Boumediene v. Bush, the fiasco surrounding Florida's 2000 vote counts, Obergefell v. Hodges) make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 No, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. The courts are supposed to rely on and interpret the law. They are not supposed to judge on the intent of the parties involved, particularly when that intent is represented by statements that are not evidence involved in the lawsuit (which the Supreme Court has ruled on, very recently). And there is nowhere in the law where it's stated an executive order is unconstitutional because the executive issuing the order is an inveterate !@#$. Nor does the fact that the courts have a sad recent history of inventing law on the spot (Boumediene v. Bush, the fiasco surrounding Florida's 2000 vote counts, Obergefell v. Hodges) make it right. The court (correctly in my opinion) decided to accept the statements as evidence. Just because you get all upset about it doesn't make that wrong. Throwing in mistakes by other courts does not support your argument very well bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 The court (correctly in my opinion) decided to accept the statements as evidence. Just because you get all upset about it doesn't make that wrong. Throwing in mistakes by other courts does not support your argument very well bro [This is an automated response.] I'm not stupid. Yes, yes you are. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 No, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. The courts are supposed to rely on and interpret the law. They are not supposed to judge on the intent of the parties involved, particularly when that intent is represented by statements that are not evidence involved in the lawsuit (which the Supreme Court has ruled on, very recently). And there is nowhere in the law where it's stated an executive order is unconstitutional because the executive issuing the order is an inveterate !@#$. Nor does the fact that the courts have a sad recent history of inventing law on the spot (Boumediene v. Bush, the fiasco surrounding Florida's 2000 vote counts, Obergefell v. Hodges) make it right. You might be right, with all the BS flying around these days it is hard to know who I should trust. I do not trust Trump but God knows I don't trust Democrats either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 You might be right, with all the BS flying around these days it is hard to know who I should trust. I do not trust Trump but God knows I don't trust Democrats either. I don't trust anyone anymore. We're pretty close to being a failed democracy at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Well,................... That's their goal........................ How labeling my organization a hate group shuts down public debate by Mark Krikorian Are you now, or have you ever been, a “hate group”? This is the question at the heart of an attempt to delegitimize and suppress views regarding immigration held by a large share of the American public. Since 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center has methodically added mainstream organizations critical of current immigration policy to its blacklist of “hate groups,” including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Californians for Population Stabilization, among others. In February, my own organization, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), got its turn. The wickedness of the SPLC’s blacklist lies in the fact that it conflates groups that really do preach hatred, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam, with ones that simply do not share the SPLC’s political preferences. The obvious goal is to marginalize the organizations in this second category by bullying reporters into avoiding them, scaring away writers and researchers from working for them, and limiting invitations for them to discuss their work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-labeling-my-organization-a-hate-group-shuts-down-public-debate/2017/03/17/656ab9c8-0812-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.23d8d425c858 Edited March 19, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 No, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. The courts are supposed to rely on and interpret the law. They are not supposed to judge on the intent of the parties involved, particularly when that intent is represented by statements that are not evidence involved in the lawsuit (which the Supreme Court has ruled on, very recently). And there is nowhere in the law where it's stated an executive order is unconstitutional because the executive issuing the order is an inveterate !@#$. Nor does the fact that the courts have a sad recent history of inventing law on the spot (Boumediene v. Bush, the fiasco surrounding Florida's 2000 vote counts, Obergefell v. Hodges) make it right. Funny, with a Democratic President your mantra was executive overreach, now with a Republican executive and Republican Congress the courts are the bad guys. Funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Five 9th Circuit Judges Eviscerate the ‘Fundamental Errors’ in Ruling Against Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ More on the disgusting SPLC: The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee. Edited March 19, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 Philadelphia cancels Cinco de Mayo parade over deportation fears Why.............were there criminals in your parade ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 While most of the west have treasonous leaders like Merkel and Obama, there is some sanity. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_EUROPE_MIGRANTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-20-08-43-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts