Supreme Court
Supreme Court
5
5
0
Trump E.O on immigration block allowed
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-travel-ban/ar-BBDeBRQ?ocid=spartandhp?
Lower courts staffed primarily by Judges appointed during the Clinton and Obama Administrations created novel rulings when they issued injunctions against Trump's E.O.
They ruled that a President's campaign statements could be used as intent behind an E.O. and allowed entities with no legitimate standing to file suit.
Will the Supreme Court finally reign in the Activist Judges?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-travel-ban/ar-BBDeBRQ?ocid=spartandhp?
Lower courts staffed primarily by Judges appointed during the Clinton and Obama Administrations created novel rulings when they issued injunctions against Trump's E.O.
They ruled that a President's campaign statements could be used as intent behind an E.O. and allowed entities with no legitimate standing to file suit.
Will the Supreme Court finally reign in the Activist Judges?
Posted in these groups: 
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 9
1
1
0
At least Trump still can't ban those with connections to the US like he tried to do.
This administration and its hyper-right wing policies never ceases to disgust me.
This administration and its hyper-right wing policies never ceases to disgust me.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Almost all of your posts about Trump have a common theme, racist, hate, lies, etc. The furthest Trump ever went was to say he wanted a temporary ban due to terrorist attacks. He said it would not include those already here. I have attached a 2015 CNN article that was one of the first to cover his campaign statement. Since he has been President, he has not advocated the ban of muslims but the countries where some of the worse terrorists arevand little vetting.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html
Almost all of your posts about Trump have a common theme, racist, hate, lies, etc. The furthest Trump ever went was to say he wanted a temporary ban due to terrorist attacks. He said it would not include those already here. I have attached a 2015 CNN article that was one of the first to cover his campaign statement. Since he has been President, he has not advocated the ban of muslims but the countries where some of the worse terrorists arevand little vetting.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.
Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, has called for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Maj Andrew Fishkin
The first one was reviewed by the DOJ and approved. The issue was not that it was "disqusting" or illegal, it was that it led to confusion. The first judge, James Robart, to issue an injunction on the first E.O. made a major legal error by not addressing Trump's authority to control immigration. I'm certain he recognized this since he denied an effort to issue an injunction on the 2nd E.O.
The 2nd E.O. was necessary. Obama disregarded immigration laws for 8 years by deciding to enforce some rules and not others. He increased the number of refugees allowed into the USA by 110,000 without congressional approval. If you are not aware, each Refugee is guaranteed Federal benefits which includes cash assistance and food stamps. In many cases, they are receiving as much or more than poor Americans. Your first thought may be that Obama as President had that authority, while that is true, Trump's authority is the same and he can decrease/pause the program.
I realize you detest Trump. This is a feeling many had for the Obama era which was viewed as reckless, ignored established law, and corrupt.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-children-of-refugees-get-more-federal-benefits-than-poor-us-kids/article/2589398
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-refugees-228134
The first one was reviewed by the DOJ and approved. The issue was not that it was "disqusting" or illegal, it was that it led to confusion. The first judge, James Robart, to issue an injunction on the first E.O. made a major legal error by not addressing Trump's authority to control immigration. I'm certain he recognized this since he denied an effort to issue an injunction on the 2nd E.O.
The 2nd E.O. was necessary. Obama disregarded immigration laws for 8 years by deciding to enforce some rules and not others. He increased the number of refugees allowed into the USA by 110,000 without congressional approval. If you are not aware, each Refugee is guaranteed Federal benefits which includes cash assistance and food stamps. In many cases, they are receiving as much or more than poor Americans. Your first thought may be that Obama as President had that authority, while that is true, Trump's authority is the same and he can decrease/pause the program.
I realize you detest Trump. This is a feeling many had for the Obama era which was viewed as reckless, ignored established law, and corrupt.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-children-of-refugees-get-more-federal-benefits-than-poor-us-kids/article/2589398
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-refugees-228134
Report: Children of refugees get more federal benefits than poor U.S. kids
America loves kids, but Uncle Sam has a favorite: children of refugees.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Really? Funny how none of the ICE trial attorneys (DHS) or OIL (Office of Immigration Litigation) attorneys knew anything about it before it hit, nor did Secretary Kelly (DHS) or the acting Attorney General (DOJ).
No, it was Trump's pair of Steves.
No, it was Trump's pair of Steves.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Maj Andrew Fishkin
Your information is at least partially wrong. Kelly stated he saw the initial drafts and he was not surprised when it was released since he knew it was coming. I don't know the process that proceeded the rollout since there are several versions based on who was fired and who wasn't, who was notified, and who wasn't. Regardless, I am certain Trump will eventually win the court case and hopefully the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that prevents further false or frivolous claims against the President's authority.
FYI, Sally Yates firing regardless of at that time or a later date was eventual.
http://time.com/4655017/the-homeland-security-secretary-said-president-trumps-visa-ban-wasnt-a-surprise/
Your information is at least partially wrong. Kelly stated he saw the initial drafts and he was not surprised when it was released since he knew it was coming. I don't know the process that proceeded the rollout since there are several versions based on who was fired and who wasn't, who was notified, and who wasn't. Regardless, I am certain Trump will eventually win the court case and hopefully the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that prevents further false or frivolous claims against the President's authority.
FYI, Sally Yates firing regardless of at that time or a later date was eventual.
http://time.com/4655017/the-homeland-security-secretary-said-president-trumps-visa-ban-wasnt-a-surprise/
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I never heard a single practicing lawyer say they thought there would be a different outcome than this. It was all just a delaying tactic.
(1)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Since very large chunks of thee EO are still enjoined the "delaying tactic" is still working/
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
You have repeatedly posted that significant portions of the E.O. injunction are still in place, they are not. The Supreme Court enabled most of the E.O. to go forward. There is only a small part that was not allowed. The Supreme Court defined who was allowed and who wasn't. Even this part was objected to by 3 judges who stated the entire injunction should have been stayed. The loss to Democrats continues.
You have repeatedly posted that significant portions of the E.O. injunction are still in place, they are not. The Supreme Court enabled most of the E.O. to go forward. There is only a small part that was not allowed. The Supreme Court defined who was allowed and who wasn't. Even this part was objected to by 3 judges who stated the entire injunction should have been stayed. The loss to Democrats continues.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would like to think so but I doubt it. It would be nice to see Judges apply the rule of law and not the rule of politics but that seems to have changed over the last 10 years.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google