Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by BSCLibertarian, Feb 9, 2017.
Assad says that there are "definitely" terrorists among the refugees.
Later, Assad intimated that water is indeed wet.
Funny how the courts can jump on something and give a ruling in a few days if political correctness is on the line, but it if involves restoring our Second Amendment Rights, they take years to even give it a hearing and years past that to make a ruling - usually against us.
Defense of our country is within President Trump's authority. He has the military to enforce his immigration order regardless of what the 9th Circuit says.
He can also stop the issuing of visas. Those already issued are good to go if they were not destroyed at the time the ban was in effect. Just don't issue any. there is no law that requires the USA to accept refugees. Visas are at the discretion of the State Department.
A nickel says Tillerson has already got that in the works.
Bingo. Trump isn't going to let something like this stop him.
Ninth Circuit says:
Arizona has not standing to challenge Obama EO on immigration.
Washington has standing to challenge Trump EO on immigration.
The old saying goes something like............if you lose at the 9th Circuit, then you have actually won.
Charles Cooke at National Review said something like 80% of the 9th Circuit's rulings get overturned at SCOTUS.
Most people don't realize that no one has ruled on the actual EO. The court issued a stay because the complainants may (or probably) have a case, when the Trump admin appealed, the ninth circuit should have sent it back to the previous court to make an actual ruling. That's my extremely non-lawyerly understanding anyway.
nope, not may or probably have a case but rather pre-judged as "likely to win"
Disband the 9th Circuit.
If this is true, then they should be impeached.
What makes it to the SCOTUS that is. What BS gets to stand when the SCOTUS doesn't hear a case?
If the 9th's rulings are consistently over-turned, it seems to me they are doing their best to usurp Constitutional Law.
They should be impeached based on this.
I made this statement 20+ years ago. This court doesn't seem to change no matter who appoints the jurist. The problem is no honest judge will accept a position on this court. You can call out 50 judges and then have to settle for the bottom of the pit where all the muck grows because none of the 50 would consider it.
Correct, that is more accurate. I was going off of memory. My point is that the EO itself has not been ruled on in court yet.
If I'm not mistaken, the petitioners are green card holders. I think an EO that is focused on the refugees and other non-green card holders would likely be harder to stop.
Does the 1st Amendment (or any amendment) apply to non-US citizens? I know that SCOTUS had a ruling somewhere that people within the US met the definition of "people" in terms of the constitution and therefore have constitutional protections, but they also had a ruling (something v. Kim as I recall) that those here illegally are not afforded the same protections (I think the ruling was related to detention prior to deportation) and certainly someone that isn't here at all (and not a citizen) wouldn't have those rights. I guess I'm just unclear on how the EO applies to non US citizens....