Trumps Travel Ban? (Round 2)

[GreenBits]

Trump may have a made a mistake by doing things openly.

He could have ordered an unofficial travel ban as well. Visas for Syrians or Somalis have only been delivered on a case-by-case basis for years. Trump could have discreetly ordered to make the scanning process even more rigorous, actually blocking all demands, and nobody would have noticed.

Why should he do something like that? He is the president of the United States, and he is having the liberty to change and modify the policies regarding immigration. It is the judges who are overstepping their jurisdiction.

This is correct, but Trump must wait until Gorsuch is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and then go with a broad question to them:

Can circuit court judges trump an executive order of Trump?

If the question is not posed broadly, then these renegade judges can go time and time again, over ruling a President.

With Gorsuch confirmed and the Court then 5-4 instead of 4-4 as is current, then a decision can be rendered that solves this matter once and for all.

Notice they have largely left the challenges alone. After Gorush makes it in, suddenly, it will get appealed to the highest court in the land. I'm curious to see what else gets pushed to the court once makes it in (its pretty much inevitable at this point).

I'm curious.  You have a fairly opposite political view than I do.  Should any circuit court judge be capable of squashing a POTUS executive order?

Before answering, consider that POTUS can and will flip from one party to the other.

Of course they should. I could give a fuck if they were Green Party, it matters not. The executive order byoasses Congressional oversight, hence it should be subject to additional legislative scrutiny to compensate for this, and ensure no abuse of power. The parties all suck in their current iterations. Sponsorship must be removed from politics before this ameliorates. I want what is moral and right, with an emphasis on harm mitigation for all involved parties.

And, it really is unconstitutional as fuck, and pretty dumb to boot. Please explain to me how a ban of countries that don't terrorize us specifically is going to help our security. If Saudi Arabia had made it on the list, I wouldn't be typing this. Oh, and the passage giving Christians preferential treatment for refugee status. I'm Christian myself, and even I can see the problem with that.

Really?  Legislative oversight for a EO?

Regardless, legislative oversight here is substituted by Judicial oversight.  So my question remains.

Think about it.  Any of many judges, each with their own perverse ideas or dogmatic political ideas, whatever, should be able to over ride the President?

use empathy and ask yourself the same question. If Obama had used an  executive order to legalize abortion, would you want that to be irreversible? So to answer your question again, yes, a circuit court should be able to squash a POTUS executive order.
No piece of legislation should be permanent. People are imperfect and times change.

And, you know, Trumps shit was unconstitutional, there is that.

Unconstitutional?  Really?  Are you an expert on that?  At the bare minimum, have you read the 9th circuit case and do you understand the counter arguments?  If not, please don't pretend.  

Still, you miss my point.  There are 178 federal appeals court judges.

Give them the power to over rule a POTUS decision, whatever a POTUS did, some one or several of them could object.

This is a clear case of a category of issues that are termed "Constitutional crises," situations where there is a problem with the application of the US Constitution.

Not in its entirety, but yes, I actually have read the commentary. But I am far from an expert. Are you?

You sound angry man.

Please don't underestimate my intelligence, I respect yours. Priori statements by Trump associates fucked this for Trump, yes, I believe that statements of intent (is this is a Muslim ban) should reflect in judgements, as this applies to all other citizens (if I make ridiculous public statements concerning the civil issue at hand, of course it would effect judgement). Calling something a Muslim ban is a clear violation of freedom of religion. The primary fucking amendment. Your were saying, originalist? And I am merely illustrating the constitutional argument. We won't address the preference of religion, and lack of legal process denied citizens.

No crisis here. Your boy did a dumbass thing, and got called on it.

If the system was so broken, with all 178 judges, why has it only failed now, during a Trump  Presidency?

Your move.

And no more diirect ad hominems. Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.

Edit: oh, I mispoke earlier, meant judicial when I said legislative. Just reread, you pointed it out for me already. Appreciated 

[Sithara007]

Unconstitutional?  Really?  Are you an expert on that?  At the bare minimum, have you read the 9th circuit case and do you understand the counter arguments?  If not, please don't pretend. 

Still, you miss my point.  There are 178 federal appeals court judges.

Give them the power to over rule a POTUS decision, whatever a POTUS did, some one or several of them could object.

This is a clear case of a category of issues that are termed "Constitutional crises," situations where there is a problem with the application of the US Constitution.

So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).

[GreenBits]

Unconstitutional?  Really?  Are you an expert on that?  At the bare minimum, have you read the 9th circuit case and do you understand the counter arguments?  If not, please don't pretend.  

Still, you miss my point.  There are 178 federal appeals court judges.

Give them the power to over rule a POTUS decision, whatever a POTUS did, some one or several of them could object.

This is a clear case of a category of issues that are termed "Constitutional crises," situations where there is a problem with the application of the US Constitution.

So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).

Was Nixon the most powerful person in the world, when he resigned instead of being impeached? No, the president isn't the most powerful person in the world. The Constitution was established to prevent just that, through separation of powers.

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

[Spendulus]

....
So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).

My point is, that this interpretation would mean that any one of the 178 was more powerful than the POTUS. 

Green_Bit is currently attempting a sophomoric argument intoning solemnly "the law" but were that true in the absolute, there would be no issue with the Supreme Court composition, or with whether judges to that body are appointed by the left or the right.  But we all know that is not the real world, and therefore, Green_bit's argument rings false, admittedly structured toward advocacy of the great merits of a legal argument barely read or understood.

That judges can error is understood by the structure of the judicial system itself, which allows appeals, appeals of appeals, and so forth.  Green_bit would trumpet a wacko decision of the 9th court, but what if, tomorrow, it was a conservative court and a liberal POTUS?  The problem is the same.

[Spendulus]

....Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.

I've seen three or four guys admit being paid to post here.

Mind if I ask, who pays you?

[GreenBits]

....Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.

I've seen three or four guys admit being paid to post here.

Mind if I ask, who pays you?

The fine folks at Bitmixer. I can spew my partisan,  toxic, quasi liberal opinions, for profit, as long as I follow posting guidelines and quality standards. I implore you, since you post decently and have excellent rank, you should look into trying a Sig camp, if you weren't aware (I'm not being sarcastic). I was like, a senior member here before I figured out guys where actually getting paid to have those colorful banners under their posts. I'm slow, I guess.

But Naw, sorry to dash your hopes, I'm not an agent of Soros or Hillary, LOL. Just a dude with strong opnions, and a cellphone. But, I will admit I get a certain glee clashing intellectually with you guys. I need to get out more.

[GreenBits]

This got all crazy misquoted when you responded, you are bright, I have no doubts you will figure out how to read this.

....
So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).

My point is, that this interpretation would mean that any one of the 178 was more powerful than the POTUS.  

Green_Bit is currently attempting a sophomoric argument intoning solemnly "the law" but were that true in the absolute, there would be no issue with the Supreme Court composition, or with whether judges to that body are appointed by the left or the right.  But we all know that is not the real world, and therefore, Green_bit's argument rings false, admittedly structured toward advocacy of the great merits of a legal argument barely read or understood.

That judges can error is understood by the structure of the judicial system itself, which allows appeals, appeals of appeals, and so forth.  Green_bit would trumpet a wacko decision of the 9th court, but what if, tomorrow, it was a conservative court and a liberal POTUS?  The problem is the same.

No, I call bullshit when I see it. Obama was no angel. Nor was Clinton. But none of them were, really. My political representatives are not deities, they are humans, pretty shady ones TBH. That's both sides of the isle. I answer to the Lord, not to a political party. Although I don't always listen,  my political platform is pretty much based off of my sense of decency, my exploration  of political science in college (I'm 31 now), and what I have been taught of the Good Book.

Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Bill is a pig. Obama kissed the Saudis ass. And Hillary fucked over Bernie. But this Trump shit us just insane man. And half of us are pretending like this is normal when it clearly isn't.

Do we feel better now?

Also, can I at least get a junior level argument award? And no, when a court is no longer bipartisan due to composition, of course the rule of law would degrade. The variety of options present int the judiciary is its own form of check and balance. It's a roulette, but it has worked, haphazardly, since the inception of the republic.

[Sithara007]

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

[Spendulus]

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.

[GreenBits]

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.


Whike I agree with the judge, and also believe that the ban was indeed unconstitutional, yes, Spendulus has it right. This is a defect of representation; you are beholden to the political will of your representative. In the spirit of how Trump voters have told us to 'deal with it', I'm suggesting the same thing. If the action truly is unjust, the system will.correct itself. I'm not naive, this doesn't always happen. That's what's wrong with government today. But you can't change the game, in the middle. Although we reject Trump, his is indeed our President.  You guys are in majority ATM. You will get over this.

I'm black BTW, I have little love lost for the present state of the legal system. But, it exists for a reason. Also, previous presidents weren't slow enough to allow surrogates to claim 'I helped make a Muslim ban at Trumps request' because they are actual politicians, and understand how this works.

I would be willing to discuss the legal argument, from my limited understanding, if you promise to argue in good faith. I think we are making progress, you, me and Spend.

[Spendulus]

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.


Whike I agree with the judge, and also believe that the ban was indeed unconstitutional, yes, Spendulus has it right. This is a defect of representation; you are beholden to the political will of your representative. In the spirit of how Trump voters have told us to 'deal with it', I'm suggesting the same thing. If the action truly is unjust, the system will.correct itself. I'm not naive, this doesn't always happen. That's what's wrong with government today. But you can't change the game, in the middle. Although we reject Trump, his is indeed our President.  You guys are in majority ATM. You will get over this.

I'm black BTW, I have little love lost for the present state of the legal system. But, it exists for a reason. Also, previous presidents weren't slow enough to allow surrogates to claim 'I helped make a Muslim ban at Trumps request' because they are actual politicians, and understand how this works.

I would be willing to discuss the legal argument, from my limited understanding, if you promise to argue in good faith. I think we are making progress, you, me and Spend.

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

[Lacander]

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45   Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.


Whike I agree with the judge, and also believe that the ban was indeed unconstitutional, yes, Spendulus has it right. This is a defect of representation; you are beholden to the political will of your representative. In the spirit of how Trump voters have told us to 'deal with it', I'm suggesting the same thing. If the action truly is unjust, the system will.correct itself. I'm not naive, this doesn't always happen. That's what's wrong with government today. But you can't change the game, in the middle. Although we reject Trump, his is indeed our President.  You guys are in majority ATM. You will get over this.

I'm black BTW, I have little love lost for the present state of the legal system. But, it exists for a reason. Also, previous presidents weren't slow enough to allow surrogates to claim 'I helped make a Muslim ban at Trumps request' because they are actual politicians, and understand how this works.

I would be willing to discuss the legal argument, from my limited understanding, if you promise to argue in good faith. I think we are making progress, you, me and Spend.

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

And I listened to you a lot less than any experts there, because recently they have been divorced a lot and each indicates that he understands more than the other. I understand politics as much as I really do. And I already encountered the right and the judicial system, and I'm very disappointed.

[GreenBits]

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse.

And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation.

Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable.

[Spendulus]

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse.

And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation.

Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable.

Well, pursuing and eagerly supporting batshit crazy would have one predictable outcome.  I'll help you out a bit.  You are going to present an argument which I oppose.  Rather than discuss it logically I am at this time shutting you up because that's my "right as a minority of one." Just like the 178 circuit court judges.  You are now shut up.

See how easy that was?  See how wrong it is? Deal with it, dude.

[GreenBits]

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse.

And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation.

Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable.

Well, pursuing and eagerly supporting batshit crazy would have one predictable outcome.  I'll help you out a bit.  You are going to present an argument which I oppose.  Rather than discuss it logically I am at this time shutting you up because that's my "right as a minority of one." Just like the 178 circuit court judges.  You are now shut up.

See how easy that was?  See how wrong it is? Deal with it, dude.

LMAO, I'm getting paid son. This is fun to me and I love pointing out how deluded Trumpism is, it's a pet cause I've picked up that I would do for free. It's my warm fuzzy, ala Paul Frank.

Honestly, man, you sound too lazy to defend yourself. You would disseminate your views for free, yet when challenged in a public forum, suddenly it's too much effort to defend yourself? Come on man, I have more respect for you that that, don't be a shit. You knew I was going to propose some shit you didn't agree with before I even started typing. I understand if you are having reservations about being able to defend your ideas.

You backed up like a bitch. Don't be a bitch, Spendulus. This is the second time you've done this.

First, let's establish if the affected party (as you are aware, there are a multitude of different classes trying this) has the right to claim damages. In the general case, that would mean individuals from the countries affected by the travel ban. In fact, are these people subject to protection under our Constitution at all given that they are non citizens? Case law says yes. Observe Yick Wo vs Hopkins. In this particular case, these Chinese nationals were procedurally denied citizenship. Admittedly, these were residents of California being denied citizenship through stature, not people living abroad. But the Supreme Court used that decision while forming opinions on Boumediene v. Bush. Hilariously, this case involves the lack of constitutional rights experienced by actual terrorists being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The Court found that, even when the president acts outside the borders, he lacks the “power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.”

OK, so hopefully we have established that the affected class has a legitimate claim, which seems reflected by recent Supreme Court decision. Moving on.

Under the First Amendment, there should be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The EO includes a clause which allows 'Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin.'. Let's look at that. As any war could generate refugees, humanitarian intent (good faith action) would entail that one would accept all refugees from an area, irrespective of religion, but respective of security risk. By specifically providing greater assistance to a specific religion, this shows favoritism, promoting the agenda of a specific religion. Because all the xountries he tarfetted are Muslim majoritys, the other side of the coin is that Muslims woukd not recieve "prioritized consideration". Damn that First Amendment. This seemingly would violate the prohibition against laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Also, by denying travel from countries that are majority Muslim, because of a 'security risk', seems to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" of Muslims in those countries as they enter our territory.

 If empiricism (statistics on terror and it's origins) were used to determine this list of countries, why was Saudi Arabia not listed? They literally did 9/11 (not Bush). While this is more a moral argument of mine than legal explanation, it leads me to my final point.

Let's go back to Wick Yo vs Hopkins. The Court pronounced that although a “law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,” if it is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” it will be evaluated accordingly. This is why I said many comments ago Trump was a dumbass for letting his cohorts run their mouths about his intent. Gotta be slicker than that. Anywho, we have the progenitor of the ban, the POTUS, calling it on record a Muslim Ban. Let me repeat that, it didn't sink in a month ago when you heard it. Muslim Ban. As in, hey, are you Muslim? Banned, bitch.

Despite the guy that wrote it calling it a Muslim ban (yet you don't think it a Muslim ban, because those are unconstitutional, right?), yet another Trump surrogate, and author of the EO, claimed it was a Muslim ban. In fact, let's quote this dumbass:

"I'll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'"

"He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'"

So, we have an obvious bad faith action, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Guilliani.

After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause

[Spendulus]

....
After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause...

BLah blah blah.

No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay."

The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant.

Now how you like that?

[GreenBits]

....
After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause...

BLah blah blah.

No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay."

The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant.

Now how you like that?

I love it man your reluctance to address my argument, kmowing how intelligent you are, vindicates me a bit. Becuase I see you are upset, I apologize, and I will disengage you. Disregard my argument. I saw that I was bearing down on you, yet I persisted with my argument for its sake despite your feelings. People first, bro. I failed at that, and for that, I am sorry, and do apologize to you, sincerely.

Anyone else is welcome to address it however, in the spirit of progress.

[Spendulus]

....
After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause...

BLah blah blah.

No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay."

The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant.

Now how you like that?

I love it man your reluctance to address my argument, kmowing how intelligent you are, vindicates me a bit. Becuase I see you are upset, I apologize, and I will disengage you. Disregard my argument. I saw that I was bearing down on you, yet I persisted with my argument for its sake despite your feelings. People first, bro. I failed at that, and for that, I am sorry, and do apologize to you, sincerely.

Anyone else is welcome to address it however, in the spirit of progress.

To illustrate your bat shit crazy even better, let's assume that you wanted to bring tomatoes to the market.

An Authorized One, ranking 47th of the 178, saw you trudging along with your cart.  He blocked your way, saying, "No, unclean one.  You are by my authority banned from taking your tomatoes to the market.  You can of course, appeal my decision to the Highest of the High Courts."

Hearing this, your face greatly saddened. "But Sir — 47th, my tomatoes will be no good after the two years it takes to go to the Highest.  They will be no good after two weeks!"

The 47th replied, "Indeed, small cretin, lowest of the low.  You see now the majesty in our Unrule of Law. Now go back to your small, cold and dark hovel, and ponder this matter."

You turned, hunched down, and wearily started back.  But before going a hundred paces, you found blocking your way another man in black. "Halt,
miserable pond scum.  I am the 68th of the 178.  You have been found by me in violation of the Law Protecting Small Creatures that Might be Squashed. You may not go further in this direction, however you may appeal my decision to the Highest, which will take years."

"But I can't go back to my house? I will be stranded here in the road with my rotten tomatoes!  I cannot go forward, and I cannot go back!"  Desperately you looked to the left, only to see the 13th, 99th, and 11th of the 178 frowning.  You looked to the right, and saw a multitude of the mid 30s of the 178.  

Then you sat down in the mud, right in the middle of the road.  A tall one in black robes came up on horseback, and peering down, shouted, "Get up! You are blocking the road. By the authority vested in me as the 178th of the 178, I decree you must get off this road immediately."

"But how may I?  I can't go forward, or back, or to either side."

"Then you must go up.  And be quick about it.  Just put your head through that loop of rope, and you'll be pulled up out of the way."

You looked up at the noose hanging from the tree branch, and wondered how this could have came to be.

[GreenBits]

Trump may have a made a mistake by doing things openly.

He could have ordered an unofficial travel ban as well. Visas for Syrians or Somalis have only been delivered on a case-by-case basis for years. Trump could have discreetly ordered to make the scanning process even more rigorous, actually blocking all demands, and nobody would have noticed.

Why should he do something like that? He is the president of the United States, and he is having the liberty to change and modify the policies regarding immigration. It is the judges who are overstepping their jurisdiction.

This is correct, but Trump must wait until Gorsuch is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and then go with a broad question to them:

Can circuit court judges trump an executive order of Trump?

If the question is not posed broadly, then these renegade judges can go time and time again, over ruling a President.

With Gorsuch confirmed and the Court then 5-4 instead of 4-4 as is current, then a decision can be rendered that solves this matter once and for all.

Notice they have largely left the challenges alone. After Gorush makes it in, suddenly, it will get appealed to the highest court in the land. I'm curious to see what else gets pushed to the court once makes it in (its pretty much inevitable at this point).

... and now that he is in, voila! Travel ban reinstated, but partially. I really don't get this; it's like they actually want chaos to ensue. Suspending review but letting it be actionable?

Notice we haven't had a terror attack on US soil recently (well, Islamic terror at least). This tells me two things. One, since this occurred while we didn't have the ban in place, I have to wonder how effective it will be. And two, now that this topic (it's perceived globally as a 'Muslim Ban) is at the forefront of global consciousness, will that illusion of safety falter?

And on the topic of shit that finally made it through the pipeline, that Christian cake thing might see the light of day.

And we all know it's a waste, because the cake is quite obviously a lie

[Spendulus]

Trump may have a made a mistake by doing things openly.

He could have ordered an unofficial travel ban as well. Visas for Syrians or Somalis have only been delivered on a case-by-case basis for years. Trump could have discreetly ordered to make the scanning process even more rigorous, actually blocking all demands, and nobody would have noticed.

Why should he do something like that? He is the president of the United States, and he is having the liberty to change and modify the policies regarding immigration. It is the judges who are overstepping their jurisdiction.

This is correct, but Trump must wait until Gorsuch is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and then go with a broad question to them:

Can circuit court judges trump an executive order of Trump?

If the question is not posed broadly, then these renegade judges can go time and time again, over ruling a President.

With Gorsuch confirmed and the Court then 5-4 instead of 4-4 as is current, then a decision can be rendered that solves this matter once and for all.

Notice they have largely left the challenges alone. After Gorush makes it in, suddenly, it will get appealed to the highest court in the land. I'm curious to see what else gets pushed to the court once makes it in (its pretty much inevitable at this point).

... and now that he is in, voila! Travel ban reinstated, but partially. I really don't get this; it's like they actually want chaos to ensue. Suspending review but letting it be actionable?....

It's okay if you don't get it.