I can understand how you feel, if you are hopelessly devoted to Rump.
Poor Trump... keeps losing!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I can understand how you feel, if you are hopelessly devoted to Rump.
There was no precedent set by the ninth. You are about as factual as TheDonald and he is an obvious troll.
tsuke reads like another uninformed moron (like ralph) or a Russian agent (like annata, ila).
The ninth did not make a ruling on the first amendment issues. I quoted that explicit statement from their ruling but tsuke persists in lying.
Even if they had it would not have set a precedent because of the nature of the case before them. They heard a "motion for a stay" from the WH of the original tro. Any ruling would have been preliminary only and therefore cannot be used as a precedent in any case other than those dealing with the technicalities of a "motion for a stay."
Tsuke has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.
The ninth did not make a ruling on the first amendment issues. I quoted that explicit statement from their ruling but tsuke persists in lying.
Even if they had it would not have set a precedent because of the nature of the case before them. They heard a "motion for a stay" from the WH of the original tro. Any ruling would have been preliminary only and therefore cannot be used as a precedent in any case other than those dealing with the technicalities of a "motion for a stay."
Tsuke has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.
Right and so their "precedent" (if they had set one) would not apply to Maryland anyway. There is so much error/deceit in what is being posted by these clowns that it becomes difficult to address them all.
Some are simply dumb, others are so dedicated to a loser they have to lie to themselves and others to keep going forward. #winning
Viva Montenegro!!
<-- McCainViva Montenegro!!
Well, it's the only thing that explains your and ila's inability to understand that Congress has no power to grant Trump exemptions to the Constitution. It must seem like a very foreign idea to you comrade, but he has no absolute powers.
of course not -that is silly and facile to even mention -but he does have strong stautory powers to exclude aliens
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-travel-ban-legal-analysis-20170206-story.html
The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Typically, legal experts say, the president would almost certainly win a legal fight involving national security and foreign citizens entering the country.
He still is limited by the Constitution. So long as it does not violate the first or fifth, he can do it, but the idiot made it clear that he intended to violate the first.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
It's just one embarrassment after another for Trumpkins and their messiah!
That nasty ol Constitution keeps getting in the way of Trump's big plans!
rhetoric, and he even walked that back since Dec 2015.
Face it -the courts are heavily politicized like everything else in modern USA
The courts are looking for campaign rhetoric, and ignoring the plain wording of the XO
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Very perceptive!
zappasguitar
Well-known member
But the "plain wording" of the XO is just semantic bullshit designed to cover up the truth.
Trump even stated he couldn't honestly describe what his first XO was designed to do because the courts would never let him ban Muslims alone.
They had to disguise the real intent by calling for a travel ban in specific "regions".
They certainly are. There is plenty of precedent supporting that they MUST! Not just can, MUST consider it.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Plain meaning rule or wording is in fact a rule of statutory construction.
I understand why you had to use vulgar language to claim it wasn't true, afterall, you have said that is the sign of a weak mind.
They are viewing the 'intent' as more weighed then the plain written text.
That's a devious construction- without merit- as are fixated on that one statement ,
instead of the various clarifications -it's for politics
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Doesn't matter what he intended, if, the actual order does not violate the constitution, Dick.
The rhetoric can be considered when evaluating if the stated objective is legitimate or not. The ban can have several effects, and if its determined by the judge that the primary goal was to exclude a specific religion, it is then likely to be considered unconstitutional.
Oversimplification. The objective can be considered for several reasons.
A law can be unconstitutional on its face, or as applied. The objective must be a legitimate government interest, and rhetoric can be evaluated to consider the true, rather than stated, goal.