Reply With Quote
From a legal standpoint sure, but I am not suggesting arresting anyone. I am suggesting considering that their "religion" is akin to being part of a hate group. You can belong to the KKK and not have committed a crime.
Trash's headless DoJ is appealing the stay.
From a legal standpoint sure, but I am not suggesting arresting anyone. I am suggesting considering that their "religion" is akin to being part of a hate group. You can belong to the KKK and not have committed a crime.
yes which is why its not illegal to belong to the KKK... it can also be said that people who join the KKK buy into their hate wholesale, where the same cant be said for people who happen to be brought up muslim
So the administration, through the DOJ, requested an emergency motion to stay the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/im...tay.motion.pdf
And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction until it obtains more information from the parties. So, for now, no ban.
I imagine his talking to the lower bench publicly does not help his cause.
What a surprise - the activist judge who halted the refugee pause does pro bono work for refugees:
Can you say, conflict of interest?
Own this mother er CN. Dude is a cuckservative appointed by Bush.
As I already pointed out:
It makes sense that the judges Dubya appointed were huge globalist cucks too.
You know he can't stay on topic.
BS. He's saying the tree was rotten when we planted the damn thing. Any fruit borne from it will obviously be just as compromised.
You know this, dj. You're being obtuse because you got us by the short hairs. It's cheap & unseemly of you.
A Republican judge appointed by a Republican president. Period.
Bush was & is a Globalist. He's got his, his family is set for the next century. It was his turn after Clinton, then Clinton would have her turn after Bush, but, Hussein Obama cut in line. "Fine, I'll wait till after you." I'm telling you nothing you don't already know.
Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump
We got ThomasPERIOD I wouldn't trust the others as far as I could throw them. (You) never make a mistake. And obviously & sadly neither do we.Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump
My laman's knowledge of the current INA expressly delegates to the XO from congress the powers of stopping entry of literally any group or clasw of aliens. While it may be ruled uncons utional, Trumps EO is following todays letter of law as established legally by a separate power. Additionally, the nations at-war emergency status further grants legally otherwise illegal extraordinary powers to the CiC.
Strictly speaking, Trump did not in any way violate any law or precedent prior to the decisions since handed down by the judiciary.
I suppose a judge can't oversee a criminal trial for someone who beat up a homeless person if said judge also volunteered at a soup kitchen?
You do realize that Republican isn't the same thing as conservative, right? Bush and his cronies are Republicans, but they aren't conservative. Dale is right, they're globalist through and through, just like the Dems.Bush named two Republicans to the Supreme Court. Two. Don't tell me he wasn't a conservative. CN panties are wet because he can't blame a liberal for striking down Trump
Conservatives voted for Bush. PLENTY of them so you have zero point.
So? Doesn't change the fact that Dubya and his cronies' actions have been fundamentally non-conservative. Especially on immigration.
Liberals kept voting Robert Byrd into office. Does that mean all liberals are racists who support the KKK?
The fatal flaw in Trump’s legal defense of his Muslim ban
To put it another way, to win their case in Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs had to convince the Court to read scope of religious liberty under RFRA to be much more expansive than any Supreme Court decision in American history had ever understood it to be under the First Amendment. And that’s exactly what the Court did in Hobby Lobby.
A 2000 amendment to RFRA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court, was “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.”
Thus, thanks to Hobby Lobby, prior First Amendment decisions are completely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular government action violates RFRA.
This interpretation of that 2000 amendment has clear implications for Trump’s Muslim ban.
Even if Mandel does prohibit courts from examining Trump’s true motive for issuing the Muslim ban when that ban is challenged under the First Amendment,
Mandel does not prevent courts from searching for Trump’s true motive in a RFRA suit.
Hobby Lobby effects “a complete separation” between RFRA and the First Amendment, and that complete separation includes Mandel.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-fatal-...958#.xejfacobj
I really can't, but I also don't think his ruling was solid. Attacking the person, might make people feel fluffy inside, but does nothing for the case itself.
There's actual good reasons to criticize his ruling that has nothing to do with what he does on his own time, tbh.
Globalism is free-market taken to the extreme. It'd be difficult (but convenient) to argue conservatives haven't been the bastion of that. You would know, being a (former?) libertarian...
He strikes me as disestablishmentarian moreso than anything else. Nihilist.
I don't think it has anything to do with one poster, but the fact that Trump is really outside the mold of your typical conservative (yes, conservative, not Republican).
Ultimately, in my personal opinion, that's what's interesting about that discussion, not whether 'fans' feel validated by his win (much like progressives of all stripes felt validated by Barry's win, even though he was in many ways nothing like a progressive).
When it comes to economic discussion, there's always been a lot of wedges that you could clearly also break down by party colors: capitalism vs socialism, globalism vs protectionism, free-market vs subsidies, etc.
You might not like Trump's election, and that's fair, but he does shake up some of those lines (at least in theory, we'll see in practice), and I don't think that's particularly bad. Much like I thought the ACA was , but because it happened, it rattled what the ty status quo was, so in that sense, it was utilitarian.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
