Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

[fhl]

liberals think Bill Clinton sticking his wang in the mouth of an intern while the oval office door is closed doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, but Trump is just too uncouth to be president.

 

[CaptainObvious]

This guys reasoning and prediction turned out to be flawed. What he failed to recognize was that the order was so ham handedly drawn that it could, and was, interpreted to apply to those who had already legally immigrated but happened to be out of the country when Trump signed the order. Thus Trump's order lay outside the current law. The later attempts to walk this back were only verbal, which is not sufficient.. They would have had to immediately rescind the order and issue a new, corrected one. Why didn't they do that? I suppose it's because it takes time, and expert advice, to concoct a legal order, and Trump was still thinking he was starring on the Apprentice, instead of serving a Great nation as its President.

Watch! You are going to see with time that he is under tremendous pressure from the Republican Leadership to act civilized and less vulgar, to lie less, and to behave less like a thirteen-year-old in diapers. But will his temperament permit it? That's the big question. In the meantime, why should we pay this guy while he is still in diapers?

At least you submit a more compelling argument than saying he just cannot do it, which is what the majority of leftists seem to be comfortable with. The problem is given this attitude of obstruction that any order, however well written, will be challenged in an obviously biased and politically motivated court system. You can't run a country that way which is the whole underlying motive.

 

[achilles28]

So you berate achilles28 for holding some perceived American Nationalistic viewpoint while living in Canada yet you defend those who wave Mexican Flags in the United States? To top it off you throw in the line "yet you reside in my country". Is this an attempt at humor or are you really this much of a broken logic hypocrite????

By the way, refugees/immigrants who have never set foot on U.S. soil do not have access to Constitutional Due Process. Go crack open another Molson, catch up on Women's Curling and leave the Constitutional discussions to those folks South of your border while we handle our Southern Border you maple leaf shaped snowflake!

Lol well said. Rear_ender is a total hypocrite.

 

[achilles28]

You're massively delusional and constantly whining about the US. You alternate between being the victim and declaring victory on every headline. You're not in a war, you're not even in the US. There is no stream of Islamic soldiers into the US, it's all in that warped mind of yours. There hasn't been a single terrorist act from refugees from the chosen countries since the 1970s. You have no jurisdiction on this, nor do you really understand the legal aspects of this case.

This forum is literally full of conservative/Republican/far right "snowflakes" who are going to get upset hundreds of times during Trump's term. You need to relax. This shit show will continue for 4 years. Who the fuck cares about this lefty/righty crap ? It's about better life for everyone, including appropriate immigrants. How dare you try to demonize other immigrants when you constantly declare yourself American yet reside in my country.

Go suck a big fat white dick, sweetheart

 

[piezoe]

Even without the "derivative harm argument," which turned out to be effective, the original Order was prima facie illegal , because it was drawn in a way that it applied to those who had already been granted status as legal immigrants. That alone would be enough to justify a stay. This defect can't be verbally corrected. Why they didn't immediately rescind the Order and draw up a legal one I don't understand, but a reasonable guess is that it was because they thought doing so would be an admission that they had done something illegal, as if no one would notice, and therefore would have immediately subjected the government to hundreds of suits seeking compensation for the costs and inconvenience caused. Or did they think by refusing to admit they screwed up and stiff arming their way through this they could limit the political fallout? Certainly those who suffered harm deserve to be compensated. I don't see any moves in that direction coming from the White House. Congress may have to step up and do the right thing.

 

[fhl]

Even without the "derivative harm argument," which turned out to be effective, the original Order was prima facie illegal , because it was drawn in a way that it applied to those who had already been granted status as legal immigrants. That alone would be enough to justify a stay. This defect can't be verbally corrected. Why they didn't immediately rescind the Order and draw up a legal one I don't understand, but a reasonable guess is that it was because they thought doing so would be an admission that they had done something illegal, as if no one would notice, and therefore would have immediately subjected the government to hundreds of suits seeking compensation for the costs and inconvenience caused. Or did they think by refusing to admit they screwed up and stiff arming their way through this they could limit the political fallout? Certainly those who suffered harm deserve to be compensated. I don't see any moves in that direction coming from the White House. Congress may have to step up and do the right thing.

Hey, if you want to get into legalities, the state of Washington was not the subject of the ban.
They had no standing.

Remember how the courts wouldn't grant standing to a single person in the Obama fake birth certificate suits? All different when you're suing Trump. Anyone and everyone has standing.

 

[achilles28]

Hey, if you want to get into legalities, the state of Washington was not the subject of the ban.
They had no standing.

Remember how the courts wouldn't grant standing to a single person in the Obama fake birth certificate suits? All different when you're suing Trump. Anyone and everyone has standing.

Yup. Liberals total hypocrites.

 

[jem]

I still don't know why the democrats are on the side of those who wish to let terrorists in the country. Isn't the main job of state and federal govt to keep their citizens safe?

I realize many of the agitators on this site would like to see the USA eliminated or dealt significant damage but but democrats?

 

[Arnie]

Even without the "derivative harm argument," which turned out to be effective, the original Order was prima facie illegal , because it was drawn in a way that it applied to those who had already been granted status as legal immigrants. That alone would be enough to justify a stay. This defect can't be verbally corrected. Why they didn't immediately rescind the Order and draw up a legal one I don't understand, but a reasonable guess is that it was because they thought doing so would be an admission that they had done something illegal, as if no one would notice, and therefore would have immediately subjected the government to hundreds of suits seeking compensation for the costs and inconvenience caused. Or did they think by refusing to admit they screwed up and stiff arming their way through this they could limit the political fallout? Certainly those who suffered harm deserve to be compensated. I don't see any moves in that direction coming from the White House. Congress may have to step up and do the right thing.

Looks like they are taking your advise.............


The White House is floating a new way to counter a stunning appeals court ruling that set back President Trump's immigration order – redrafting the order in a way that could take effect immediately and be more resistant to legal challenge.

President Trump signaled an unmistakable instinct to fight for his original order Thursday night when bluntly told opponents: 'See you in court!' after criticizing judges who stood in his path.

But now, the White House is also laying out an alternative path. Asked if the president was considering signing a new executive order on immigration, a White House official told CNN, '"Nothing's off the table."
CNN's Jim Acosta added on air Friday morning, 'They may go back and revise this executive order that that is a possibility that no options are being essentially taken off the table at this point.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...avel-ban-order-dodge-court.html#ixzz4YJldimhr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[jem]

I wrote yesterday they should cite the the testimony before Congress by our security leaders... (under obama) that we can not screen out all terrorists.

Therefore halt all immigration for 6 months or until the homeland guys state we can screen out all terrorists from that location.