Appeals Court Rules Against Trump

What we have in Ireland is an independent Attorney General.

Whenever the government wants to bring in a controversial law, they bring him in to look at it in detail, to see if there is any way that it might be challenged in the courts. If he finds a problem, the government can fix it before it is introduced. This has the effect of reducing legal challenges to laws.

Maybe the US needs a similar system, rather than just appointing Liberal or Conservative Yes-Man Attorney Generals depending on which party is in power.
 
BonScott said:
What we have in Ireland is an independent Attorney General.

Whenever the government wants to bring in a controversial law, they bring him in to look at it in detail, to see if there is any way that it might be challenged in the courts. If he finds a problem, the government can fix it before it is introduced. This has the effect of reducing legal challenges to laws.

Maybe the US needs a similar system, rather than just appointing Liberal or Conservative Yes-Man Attorney Generals depending on which party is in power.
More...


He did a good job reviewing the law that gave aapl huge tax benefits, didn't he?
 
This is of course a frivolous suit brought by leftists to be ruled on by leftists. On that there is no need to debate. The whole thing is nothing more than a stalling tactic. The courts are all they have left and luckily for them they have filled the courts with radical leftists. Can't say they weren't thinking ahead. With crazy assed idealogy as they have even the democrats knew they would eventually lose all power to govern. They're now playing their hole card and frankly going to be very effective in bringing the most everything to a slow grind.
 
achilles28 said:
Why didn't the States protest when Obama blocked Iraqi refugees for 6 months? Identical scenario.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

2. Not a ban. Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.
More...
 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

. Not a ban. Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.
 
Judges Declare Judges Can Grant Immigration
Visas, Even When Elected President Disagrees
Breitbart Big Government, by Neil Munroe Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 2/10/2017 11:11:40 AM Post Reply
Judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California are opening a new immigration route for foreigners, which would bypass the federal agencies’ sole authority to approve or decline foreigners’ immigration or entry into the U.S. The new route is created by the Feb. 9 decision which blocks the White House’s very popular reform of immigration rules. If upheld by the Supreme Court later this year, the new declaration would allow overseas foreigners — including those hostile to the United States — to hire lawyers to persuade judges to grant them visas, residency permits and eventually citizenship.
 
trendlover said:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

. Not a ban. Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.
More...
Thank you for providing a pristine example of a leftist legal opinion that has nothing to do with the actual law as it's written. All of what you state may be true depending on ones point of view and none of it is relevant to the case. As a member of the party of intellectuals you once again illustrate absolute and total ignorance of constitutional law, and this particular statute is brain dead easy to understand unlike much of law which is written to make your head swim.
 
achilles28 said:
I agree. This. Fuck the court.

The court has zero jurisdiction here. The court isn't the final arbiter as to what constitutes a security threat, or nebulous security threat. That's up for politicians to decide. Not these asswipes.

So any executive order now can be challenged by a State using a TRO, under the guise of lost tax revenue (for ex. to universities and colleges), and state residents who incur financial losses and emotional upheaval???

Obama care? How many tens of millions of Americans suffered massive financial losses from being forced into that shit show. What of their emotional suffering? Being forced into bankruptcy? Strain on their families? What of lost tax revenue to the local economy that would have otherwise benefited tens of billions - if not hundreds - in sales that circulates through, that otherwise went directly to the insurance company, and the top 2%, of its shareholders in dividends!! How does making the top 1% of Americas richest that much richer by doubling and tripling stock prices of the biggest insurers?? That doesn't help the bottom 95% of Americans who don't own stocks !! Their wealth gets transferred to those companies so their standard of living goes down !!!!


Listen, everyones the fucking victim. All these liberal pussies do is throw out red herring after red herring.

Now these bitches are playing the VICTIM. Every government policy decision has a VICTIM and a VICTOR. Some benefit, some hurt. Wah wah. Lost revenue. We're in a fucking war.

Since when the fuck does lost revenue have anything to do with preventing islamic soliders - already streaming into the motherfucking country - from entering the united states? That makes zero sense. This is almost treason. It could be. It's blatant. .
More...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top