• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss


This was a political decision by a partisan liberal activist court
 
America could have had a 9th justice without the nuclear option of McConnell. The choice of Garland upset the liberal wing of the DEMs. America wins today over the alt-right tyranny of trump/Bannon .

America won today? You speak for America? How are we safer today than we were with the ban? How about you adopting a terrorist or taking in a few of those immigrants? That liberal logic, love Trumps's response, See you in Court. What the hell do you people expect from the President if you oppose the basic charge he has as President, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE??
 
The 9th District Court always overturns the will of the people, that's been their chief objective for decades. They serve the ACLU and DNC only.

First, the "will of the people" you suggest here does not exist in this case. America is pretty split on this, but that is not germane.

The fact is that the "will of the people" is irrelevant. One of the main jobs of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What is also not germane is that the EO is a pretty stupid approach to the problem, but that is another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Wow!

Not just 3-0, but a 19 page repudiation declaring the EO has Constitutional issues?

I'm a little blown away on this, especially their argument claiming Constitutional issues of the EO itself. I listened to the arguments live, and did not see this coming.

Trump is an idiot if he appeals this to the SC with their arguing against the Constitutional issues. He's far better to let the order expire, and let the EO get challenged on another district court's affirmed ruling. That way in a 4-4 SC tie the EO will stand, rather than have the Constitutional issues remain in this ruling.
 
Well, maybe it won't be so bad, eh?

What's the rest of the worlds experience with these refugees / migrants?


Ahh. No. Yeah, if the West coast is of the mind to open their hearts, minds and homes to refugees and migrants, by all means, let them take them all.
 
No, there was. That's not the problem.

The problem is that in congressional testimony, Obama's security department leaders were saying that it wasn't

Please have trump get rid of his incompetent alt-right writers of this EO and get some competent people running this Nation .
 
You could have written a more competent EO than that done by Bannon/Miller.

trump and America are being ill-served by trump's kabal of alt-rightists .

These unelected liberal judges just assumed responsibility for national security

And they are not entitled to have that power
 

A US Circuit Appeals Court Judge makes $211,800 per year. That is a nice salary, but it won't make you rich. It is also not 1% territory, which is more than double that salary.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...in-u-s-see-25-000-more-as-salary-freeze-falls
What Does It Take to Be in the Top 1 Percent? Not As Much As You Think - U.S. Global Investors
 
Yes it has and this unconstitutional ruling proves it.

No, it simply hasn't. And this isn't unconstitutional until a higher body rules on it.

You don't seem to understand how this all works.
 
These unelected liberal judges just assumed responsibility for national security

And they are not entitled to have that power

Which liberal judges are you referring to? Please name some names.
 
Dershowitz thinks Trump will likely win the travel ban case in the Supreme Court. There are things the legislative branch could do that would make it perfectly clear to any sitting federal judge where their limits of juris prudence begins and ends on immigration while issuing a law that halts travel from certain countries and halts refugees till the government can put into place better vetting practices.

But there is some good that has come out of this. It highlights how some judges have an appalling level of hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire purpose of federal control over immigration in the first place. It's our sovereignty stupid! States have power to enforce the law on behalf of their sovereignty but not at the expense of violating national sovereignty!
 
OK. So there's issues with the EO and the temporary suspension of accepting refugees and immigrants from certain countries.
Re-write it so that the courts objections are eliminated. What's the problem?
I think this a faster means to resolving this issue than fighting it through the courts.

Of course, I guess all of these immigration bans were unconstitutional as well then?

 
No, it simply hasn't. And this isn't unconstitutional until a higher body rules on it.

You don't seem to understand how this all works.

Um...yeah, it's absolutely unconstitutional. If a circuit court legalized slavery; would that be unconstitutional?
 
I predicted this would happen. Liberal judges will abuse their power to enforce politics over the law. With the SCOTUS as it is it would be a 4 4 ruling leaving the 9th ruling in place.

Amusing you consider it an abuse of power. I consider Trump the epitome of abuse of power. He has no concept of the checks and balances of the U.S. government.
 
Um...yeah, it's absolutely unconstitutional. If a circuit court legalized slavery; would that be unconstitutional?

You really do seem confused about how are system works and how things are adjudicated.

I see you haven't yet read the ruling.

Perhaps you should consider doing so.
 
Exactly which event in the last 60 years you mention did the left start to trample the will of the people ?

The most obvious event would be the 'Immigration Act of 1965' which Lyndon Johnson & his partner in crime Ted Kennedy moved
threw congress with bold faced lies while a Harris Poll conducted at that very time revealed Americans by over a 2 to 1 margin wanted
no further immigration at all. DISGUSTING!
 
America won today? You speak for America? How are we safer today than we were with the ban?
How are we less safe today than we were in the past decade without the ban?

Here's a better question. You seem to be claiming that in order to keep America safe, we should ban that which poses danger. In 2016, according to numbers I'm reading, 54 people were killed as the result of terrorism in 2016. Conversely, over 11,000 Americans were murdered by firearms in 2015.

Is it your position then we should ban firearms in the name of keeping America safe?
 
You really do seem confused about how are system works and how things are adjudicated.

I see you haven't yet read the ruling.

Perhaps you should consider doing so.

Can a circuit court overrule a declaration of war?
 
Which liberal judges are you referring to? Please name some names.

I don't care what their names are because they are not celiberties to me

Now I suppose you are going to breathlessly inform me that two of them are establishment lapdogs appointed by bush

If so thanks for nuthin because I already know
 
Can a circuit court overrule a declaration of war?

Maybe so if congress declares war against a country that Microsoft depends on for slave labor software programmers
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…