I know this is a cute little attempt to throw the words Trump threw back at a charity fraudster and bribe taker Clinton. Probably Frederick Hindsight got a chuckle from it. I don't think Bill Maher would pop it out there like that. But what do you think you'd put ME in jail for, given your views on immigration?
Temp Halt gets overturned?
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
I know this is a cute little attempt to throw the words Trump threw back at a charity fraudster and bribe taker Clinton. Probably Frederick Hindsight got a chuckle from it. I don't think Bill Maher would pop it out there like that. But what do you think you'd put ME in jail for, given your views on immigration?
Well, I didn’t think I’d say this but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it, but I'd get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been anything like it.
and you don't know what my views on immigration are. I haven't expressed them.
Oh i get it. It was just a cutsie trendy meaningless little comeback that hasn't anything to do with the topic of this thread, which is judicial scope in regards to immigration. While i don't know your stance, i detect some memory of some things Trump has said, and some resentment about Trump's attitude toward the charity fraud, pay-for-play ways of murderous Clinton, and can only guess that you are for open borders.
Oh but you don't.
"Charity fraud, pay-for-play ways of murderous Clinton", and guessing who and who isn't for open borders hasn't anything to do with the topic of this thread.
And as for judicial scope, well there is a TRO in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has denied an emergency motion to issue an immediate stay of it, so judicial scope is at this time somewhat of a moot point anyway.
I know you and other fanboys have a big mancrush going for Trump, but unless the Groper in Chief starts to do things properly and stops acting like he's a f'kn emperor issuing EO's all over his realm, then most everything he's promised to do is going to go to hell in any event like this already has to a great degree .
Last edited:
Oh but you don't.
"Charity fraud, pay-for-play ways of murderous Clinton", and guessing who and who isn't for open borders hasn't anything to do with the topic of this thread.
And as for judicial scope, well there is a TRO in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has denied an emergency motion to issue an immediate stay of it, so judicial scope is at this time somewhat of a moot point anyway.
I know you and other fanboys have a big mancrush going for Trump, but unless the Groper in Chief starts to do things properly and stops acting like he's a f'kn emperor issuing EO's all over his realm, then most everything he's promised to do is going to go to hell in any event like this already has to a great degree .
You have no bloody clue what ur talking about. Prepare for the overturn of the tro. This is all flimsy judicial activism
"The Supreme Court even ruled in 1993 that the president had "ample power" to order a naval blockade to keep out Haitians trying to enter the United States. Surely he has the authority to stop a Libyan, in Libya, from receiving permission to enter the United States".---Byron York, Washington Examiner
If he'd done things properly in the first place there would probably have been no grounds for a TRO and Courts could well have refused to issue.
Leaving 100's of thousands of non terrorists including nationals and valid visa holding folk potentially stranded half way around the world without recourse to any due process, while giving vapid assurances to "Christians", was as dumb as it gets. Considering all the vast resources available to bring down on how restrictions could be properly applied, Trump fk'd up.
Leaving 100's of thousands of non terrorists including nationals and valid visa holding folk potentially stranded half way around the world without recourse to any due process, while giving vapid assurances to "Christians", was as dumb as it gets. Considering all the vast resources available to bring down on how restrictions could be properly applied, Trump fk'd up.
The answer is, it depends upon what the EO deals with. In this case, yes, because he has clear statutory authority and it concerns the security of the US.
What you're suggesting is a system in which virtually every order the president issues would have to be justified to multiple district court judges, any one of which could bind the entire country. That doesn't sound like a very efficient system to me. Not very democratic either.