Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this is what Trump is saying .... "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" So called Judge?????" He is following almost exactly the plot from the excellent Sinclair Lewis book " It can't happen here". In addition it is interesting that apparently, Citizen Kane is his favourite film; though it is clear that he regards the centrsl charachter as a hero, not a figure of revulsion.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this is what Trump is saying .... "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" So called Judge?????" What recent treatment of British judges does that remind you of? Our government's silence was every bit as sinister I'd say  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just hope nothing goes wrong as in someone traveling from one of those countries and committs any crimes because they will jump on them big time " Sadly this means that Trump will be looking for exactly that. So far they've found the Bowling Green "massacre". That's how high the bar is so far. So there was a recent, apparently, terrorist attack in Paris yesterday. A man born in the UAE with an Egyptian passport. Neither on the list of countries on Trump's travel ban so it's purely for publicity. Door locked, bolted and chained. Windows left open. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just hope nothing goes wrong as in someone traveling from one of those countries and committs any crimes because they will jump on them big time Sadly this means that Trump will be looking for exactly that. So far they've found the Bowling Green "massacre". That's how high the bar is so far. So there was a recent, apparently, terrorist attack in Paris yesterday. A man born in the UAE with an Egyptian passport. Neither on the list of countries on Trump's travel ban so it's purely for publicity. Door locked, bolted and chained. Windows left open."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
It would be quite amusing to see Donny the Nonce standing trial for capital treason | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sometimes a picture can express things pretty well. Hopefully you saw the Dr Zeuss cartoon. Here's an Instagram one. Girl power 
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQIIkpzlX3_/
"
Thanks for sharing! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sometimes a picture can express things pretty well. Hopefully you saw the Dr Zeuss cartoon. Here's an Instagram one. Girl power
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQIIkpzlX3_/
"I must have posted Dr Seuss somewhere else. It's actually before he was Dr Seuss. From the Atlantic: https://goo.gl/images/7wuj9u | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I will speak about this, proves that the judicial branch of the United States even knows that the ban is unconstitutional. So it proves, that checks and balances work." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he labelled his AG a traitor and sacked her for being right... I wonder how much the US people are now going to have to fork out in compensation for that fuck up? I wonder if the Donald will dip into his personal wealth to reimburse the US people for his fuck up?" for the actual job.... he wont have to pay out much which is a break, as she was going anyway... she decided to only stay on till the new administration got their people in.... for the slander around it, and saying she Betrayed the DOJ...... that could cost donald loads!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this is what Trump is saying .... "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" So called Judge????? What recent treatment of British judges does that remind you of? Our government's silence was every bit as sinister I'd say "Sinister? The freedom of the press is every bit as important as the freedom of the judiciary to be allowed to do their jobs. As Trump is not beyond criticism, the judiciary are also not beyond criticism and the press must be allowed to do their jobs freely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What everyone is failing to recognize is that whether Trump wins the court case or not, he is going to win in the end... The issue is that he does have the authority to make policy decisions very broadly on border control. He only made his mistake in the reach and scope of his executive order. So, let's say the entire executive order gets thrown out as unconstitutional (which is still a tough sell as it's only parts of it that *most* courts have thus far ruled against). Well, fine, he just writes a new one - one that doesn't effect greencard holders, current visa holders, or refugees that have already been vetted and one that excludes the minority-religions exception. Hey presto! A new and improved, and constitutional, executive order that is almost as saddening as the first. I have little real hope left." Like it or not it's what people who voted for him want and it's what he promised on his campaign trail. Opinion polls from the states suggest Trump has majority support for what he is doing, but the only thing people see on their TV screens are those (minority) protesting against it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What everyone is failing to recognize is that whether Trump wins the court case or not, he is going to win in the end... The issue is that he does have the authority to make policy decisions very broadly on border control. He only made his mistake in the reach and scope of his executive order. So, let's say the entire executive order gets thrown out as unconstitutional (which is still a tough sell as it's only parts of it that *most* courts have thus far ruled against). Well, fine, he just writes a new one - one that doesn't effect greencard holders, current visa holders, or refugees that have already been vetted and one that excludes the minority-religions exception. Hey presto! A new and improved, and constitutional, executive order that is almost as saddening as the first. I have little real hope left. Like it or not it's what people who voted for him want and it's what he promised on his campaign trail. Opinion polls from the states suggest Trump has majority support for what he is doing, but the only thing people see on their TV screens are those (minority) protesting against it. " Um, like it or not? I believe I was just describing how he's going to win in the end. I know how the people who voted for him feel - I speak to some of them on a weekly basis. But me not liking it is meaningful. I can dissent. As can those who are protesting. Opinion polls are meaningless when put against the constitution. I don't think Trump will come out victorious when the elections roll around again so the "like it or not" rhetoric should be used sparingly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" he's going to win in the end." It may seem bleak to you now but he won't win in the end. Neither will the brexiters. Remember the last global war against the far right? They had been building for it for a long time, while we were complacent and didn't at first realise the threat or true agenda. They had their tactics worked out and it took us quite a while to mobilise properly and workout out how to counter them. Well, midway and Alamein are coming. Trump is his own worst enemy. The more he does the more the world and the US protests and resists the more people will feel emboldened to stand with them. That is the importance of the protests that have sprung up around the world in support of those in the USA. I see even the Koch brothers, who wouldn't support him, are starting to voice disapproval. Well, they own a number of republican congressmen and senators so on certain matters, at least, Trump will be blocked. The backlash that is coming against trump and the far right in the United States, as it will with farage, the Tory right and the brexiters is going to be enormous as the impact of their policies and incompetence starts to be felt on the ordinary people who have been conned. Trump made a big thing of Hilary being in the thrall of Wall Street. His cabinet is made up of former Goldman Sachs ceo's and Wall Street billionaires who are intent on weakening employment rights, health and safety standards, environmental protection and taking away healthcare for millions. The outcome, in the end, will be that policies and rhetoric of hatred, division, prejudice and oppression will be utterly rejected and the world will correct itself and not only get back on track, but be better than ever. Trump may well be the best thing to happen to the world in a long time, but not in the way his supporters think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" he's going to win in the end. It may seem bleak to you now but he won't win in the end. Neither will the brexiters. Remember the last global war against the far right? They had been building for it for a long time, while we were complacent and didn't at first realise the threat or true agenda. They had their tactics worked out and it took us quite a while to mobilise properly and workout out how to counter them. Well, midway and Alamein are coming. Trump is his own worst enemy. The more he does the more the world and the US protests and resists the more people will feel emboldened to stand with them. That is the importance of the protests that have sprung up around the world in support of those in the USA. I see even the Koch brothers, who wouldn't support him, are starting to voice disapproval. Well, they own a number of republican congressmen and senators so on certain matters, at least, Trump will be blocked. The backlash that is coming against trump and the far right in the United States, as it will with farage, the Tory right and the brexiters is going to be enormous as the impact of their policies and incompetence starts to be felt on the ordinary people who have been conned. Trump made a big thing of Hilary being in the thrall of Wall Street. His cabinet is made up of former Goldman Sachs ceo's and Wall Street billionaires who are intent on weakening employment rights, health and safety standards, environmental protection and taking away healthcare for millions. The outcome, in the end, will be that policies and rhetoric of hatred, division, prejudice and oppression will be utterly rejected and the world will correct itself and not only get back on track, but be better than ever. Trump may well be the best thing to happen to the world in a long time, but not in the way his supporters think. " ....straw clutching at its worst. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What everyone is failing to recognize is that whether Trump wins the court case or not, he is going to win in the end... The issue is that he does have the authority to make policy decisions very broadly on border control. He only made his mistake in the reach and scope of his executive order. So, let's say the entire executive order gets thrown out as unconstitutional (which is still a tough sell as it's only parts of it that *most* courts have thus far ruled against). Well, fine, he just writes a new one - one that doesn't effect greencard holders, current visa holders, or refugees that have already been vetted and one that excludes the minority-religions exception. Hey presto! A new and improved, and constitutional, executive order that is almost as saddening as the first. I have little real hope left. Like it or not it's what people who voted for him want and it's what he promised on his campaign trail. Opinion polls from the states suggest Trump has majority support for what he is doing, but the only thing people see on their TV screens are those (minority) protesting against it. " I don't know. I have a suspicion that, similarly to Brexit, a lot of Trumps cites were protest votes. The number of people who have said 'invited for him as I didn't want Hilary in'. And I would suspect that the treason they didn't want Hilary in are much the things that Trump is going on to do now. Trump managed to somehow convince them that Hilary was corrupt and that he was clean. It was amazing showmanship and the power he had in convincing people to believe in him was unbelievable. The question is, how long will it go on for? I'm no sure how often the presidential ratings are carried out, but it will be interesting to see if his approval goes up or down. My guess will be his approval might go up a bit. But his disapproval will go up further as the country becomes more polarised. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sinister? The freedom of the press is every bit as important as the freedom of the judiciary to be allowed to do their jobs. As Trump is not beyond criticism, the judiciary are also not beyond criticism and the press must be allowed to do their jobs freely. " Really.... sure the press must be allowed to do their jobs.. but press in this country calling judges "enemies of the people" because the interpretation of law was not the same is basically incitement.... Funny do talk about freedom of the press because in a lot of way trump is trying to stifle theres | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today is Monday; I am sure many of Trump's administration will be working hard right now through the night/early morning, preparing to present more arguments news could be good tomorrow. "Ahem....BOTH sides get to present.... The reason why this may stand is the Rudy guliani interview he gave to Fox News where he said the original intention was a Muslim ban, and this was the best tool available to try and circumvent that law, ...... So the intention is that it is a Muslim ban in all but name..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today is Monday; I am sure many of Trump's administration will be working hard right now through the night/early morning, preparing to present more arguments news could be good tomorrow.
Ahem....BOTH sides get to present....
The reason why this may stand is the Rudy guliani interview he gave to Fox News where he said the original intention was a Muslim ban, and this was the best tool available to try and circumvent that law, ......
So the intention is that it is a Muslim ban in all but name.....
"I personally think that in this instance, Trump will prevail in the end simply by drafting the EO correctly. The main point in the mid term is how long he will accept having to answer to the Press and Judiciary for his rash behaviour before he has a complete meltdown? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I personally think that in this instance, Trump will prevail in the end simply by drafting the EO correctly. The main point in the mid term is how long he will accept having to answer to the Press and Judiciary for his rash behaviour before he has a complete meltdown? " i don't think he will... we agree that he did try to overstretch it.... but since then they have taken out green card holders and dual nationals not departing from those countries and they still had it struck down.... the side against will point out in the EO that its specially mentions 9/11 but none of the people involved comes from any of the countries names.... it also mentions isis.. and someone should have known that they despise shia's as much as christians... and even then... when you talk about incidences since 1975... none have involved any from those countries... he could get around it by legistlation thru congress... but i don't think they are going to want to touch this one with a 10ft pole.... in a perverse way i think he would get more cred from his followers if he said "i tried and it got shot down" rather than fighting a battle he is not going to win, he is not going to win public fights with judges.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I personally think that in this instance, Trump will prevail in the end simply by drafting the EO correctly. The main point in the mid term is how long he will accept having to answer to the Press and Judiciary for his rash behaviour before he has a complete meltdown? i don't think he will... we agree that he did try to overstretch it.... but since then they have taken out green card holders and dual nationals not departing from those countries and they still had it struck down.... the side against will point out in the EO that its specially mentions 9/11 but none of the people involved comes from any of the countries names.... it also mentions isis.. and someone should have known that they despise shia's as much as christians... and even then... when you talk about incidences since 1975... none have involved any from those countries... he could get around it by legistlation thru congress... but i don't think they are going to want to touch this one with a 10ft pole.... in a perverse way i think he would get more cred from his followers if he said "i tried and it got shot down" rather than fighting a battle he is not going to win, he is not going to win public fights with judges...." ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some "you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined.... so would he be right to put the uk on that list? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?"UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations "Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position? The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight. The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations
Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position?
The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight.
The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations.
"who mentioned Iraq? apart from yourself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations
Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position?
The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight.
The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations.
who mentioned Iraq? apart from yourself?"Try looking at the list of 7 countries that you were talking about... ... "so would he be right to put the uk on that list? "
" UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations "
Or perhaps you were talking about another list not relating to the thread topic or what you were responding to.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations
Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position?
The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight.
The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations.
who mentioned Iraq? apart from yourself?"Iraq is on the list. But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations
Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position?
The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight.
The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations.
who mentioned Iraq? apart from yourself?
Iraq is on the list.
But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it."I think we should wait a couple of days before pushing opinions, there is much more to develope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ISIS are a clever bunch, as are other terrorist countries, they recruit outwith their country, but then that's too obvious for some
you are right... but then i could also validly put forward that there are more british citizens have attacked US citizens in the name of ISIS/AQ terrorism then the 7 countries that are on the list have combined....
so would he be right to put the uk on that list?
UK do not support, finance & harbour terrorist organisations
Some in the U.K. do, therefore you must mean the official government position?
The official government position of Iraq (and Iran) is that they are at war with the very people who the Trumpster is trying to keep out of the USA and indeed in Iraq, the USA and Iraq are allies in that very fight.
The government of Iraq does not support, harbour or finance terrorist organisations.
who mentioned Iraq? apart from yourself?
Iraq is on the list.
But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it.
I think we should wait a couple of days before pushing opinions, there is much more to develope"Indeed, much is to develop. A bi-partisan group of 10 Bush/Obama era officials just filed that they believe the EO does nothing to increase security, actually harms the US's security and is not in line with US values... signed by: Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice It is quite a damning read. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. " Why should that surprise you? We all know he is a liar but it is one of his proud boasts that he never settles law suits. If he refuses to obey civil courts and deliberately bankrupts businesses to avoid having to pay compensation to those he has wronged in business why would you expect him to act differently as the US president? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it." This will be quite a constitutional battle as America is a nation of immigrants but if I was representing Trump I would suggest he's acting well within the rule and spirit of the law and I would support it with the maxim from the Roman philosopher Cicero: "Salus populi suprema lex est" variously translated as "The health of the people should be the supreme law," or "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme (or highest) law" or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law". While the Founding Fathers clearly wanted to establish checks and balances on Presidential power I don't think it was their intention to invite into their nation those whose avowed intention was to destroy it. If this goes to the Supreme Court then it may well hold a different view but if terrorists come into the country as a result of a ruling against Trump then I agree that if there is a terrorist attack then they (the judges) should be made to answer as well, after all with power comes responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it. This will be quite a constitutional battle as America is a nation of immigrants but if I was representing Trump I would suggest he's acting well within the rule and spirit of the law and I would support it with the maxim from the Roman philosopher Cicero: "Salus populi suprema lex est" variously translated as "The health of the people should be the supreme law," or "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme (or highest) law" or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law". While the Founding Fathers clearly wanted to establish checks and balances on Presidential power I don't think it was their intention to invite into their nation those whose avowed intention was to destroy it. If this goes to the Supreme Court then it may well hold a different view but if terrorists come into the country as a result of a ruling against Trump then I agree that if there is a terrorist attack then they (the judges) should be made to answer as well, after all with power comes responsibility. " The job of a judge is to interpret the law. If their interpretation of law leaves the state or the people insecure it's the fault of the law and the law makers, not those who's job it is to interpret the law. That's a basic and simple principle of government with rule of law. I personally don't think the US Supreme Court will rule based on any Roman maxim but on the law and their interpretation of the intentions of those who made law, as any judge in law worth calling themselves a judge would. The President of the US is not above the law and, as the leader of a democratic country, he should and must submit to the law which, until or unless a higher court rules otherwise, says this ban is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Whether you, I or the President agree or think the ban is good or bad, right or wrong, or anything else is irrelevant, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law is essential for a democracy to function. Without out these two safeguards we don't have a democracy but simply rule by majoritism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ................... While the Founding Fathers clearly wanted to establish checks and balances on Presidential power I don't think it was their intention to invite into their nation those whose avowed intention was to destroy it. If this goes to the Supreme Court then it may well hold a different view but if terrorists come into the country as a result of a ruling against Trump then I agree that if there is a terrorist attack then they (the judges) should be made to answer as well, after all with power comes responsibility. " Judges dont make the law, they interpret it. If the law is an ass, get the law makers to change it. In this instance, they wont change the law because it does not need changing. No harm as ever come to an American on American soil from anyone from those seven countries. There is no clear and present danger and any harm that has come to Anmericans has come from people originating from countries not on the list of seven. It is discriminatory, unnecessary and could make a terrorist action more likelyu, rather than less likely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But surely a far more important question is whether the ban was legal or not. Currently it has been ruled as illegal and unconstitutional. Even if ultimately the US Supreme Court rules otherwise it's legality is clearly, and always was from conception, questionable. This shows a clear lack of forethought on behalf of the President. Even more worrying is his attack on the judge that has made the ruling. It's almost as if the President of The USA no longer believes in the rule of law or that he should be subject to it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ban itself, this is a very worrying time for the rule of law and democracy, which can only ever truly function with it. This will be quite a constitutional battle as America is a nation of immigrants but if I was representing Trump I would suggest he's acting well within the rule and spirit of the law and I would support it with the maxim from the Roman philosopher Cicero: "Salus populi suprema lex est" variously translated as "The health of the people should be the supreme law," or "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme (or highest) law" or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law". While the Founding Fathers clearly wanted to establish checks and balances on Presidential power I don't think it was their intention to invite into their nation those whose avowed intention was to destroy it. If this goes to the Supreme Court then it may well hold a different view but if terrorists come into the country as a result of a ruling against Trump then I agree that if there is a terrorist attack then they (the judges) should be made to answer as well, after all with power comes responsibility. " I will guarantee in the next year in America more people will die because of its permissive stance upon firearms than will die from a terrorist attack attributable to continuing to allow travel from these countries Trump has no intention on protecting the lives or wellbeing of Americans if he did perhaps he would not be so against a health care system 
I would suggest that Trump and his foul mouth is a greater danger and motivation to radical terrorists regardless of any travel inconvenience thus according to the logic defence above , removing trump would be the best defence in reducing the possibility of a deadly terror attack | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this is what Trump is saying .... "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" So called Judge????? What recent treatment of British judges does that remind you of? Our government's silence was every bit as sinister I'd say
Sinister? The freedom of the press is every bit as important as the freedom of the judiciary to be allowed to do their jobs. As Trump is not beyond criticism, the judiciary are also not beyond criticism and the press must be allowed to do their jobs freely. "The British judiciary does not comment publicly. It cannot defend itself from criticism when attacked. The press can say what it likes and bring up important and highly relevant points like their sexuality. It is the role of the government to speak up for it's independence even if it doesn't like its judgements. The UK government was conspicuous in its failure to do this. It made a political decision which implicitly criticised the independence of the judiciary. That is sinister. Were you aware of these conventions? They are not well known so sometimes these things are not so clear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Whether you, I or the President agree or think the ban is good or bad, right or wrong, or anything else is irrelevant, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law is essential for a democracy to function. Without out these two safeguards we don't have a democracy but simply rule by majoritism."
Of course, if you "know" that your right then you just should be allowed to get things done"
Trump is behaving as he does running his companies. He says "do this" and nobody argues. He's been contemptuous of the law in his business dealings. He's not running one of his companies. It's not even his country. It belongs to every citizen and he can't be contemptuous of the law anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Judges dont make the law, they interpret it. " As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis. American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Defended" The US Department of Justice has defended President Donald Trump's travel ban and urged an appeals court to reinstate it in the interests of national security . A 15-page brief argued it was a "lawful exercise of the president's authority" and not a ban on Muslims . A hearing has been set for Tuesday on whether to allow or reject the ban. The filing was made to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the halting of Mr Trump's order on Friday by a federal judge in Washington state. . Told you the next couple of days would be interesting times "It is getting interesting. 127 tech CEOs are opposing the ban. Looks like American companies are not on his side. Even the uber CEO left his advisory board because he lost 200,000 users. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Judges dont make the law, they interpret it. As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis. American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases." Right. And that is why cases like this (and May trying to bypass parliament) are so important as they set a precedent. If Trump or May are able to go against the constitution and laws of the country and a court allows them then it sets a dangerous precedent for future rulings. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Told you the next couple of days would be interesting times "You are aware that expressing a hope that someone lives in interesting times is a curse aren't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Told you the next couple of days would be interesting times
You are aware that expressing a hope that someone lives in interesting times is a curse aren't you?"Do you believe in curses, leprechauns, fairies and all that shite? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do." where did you hear that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. where did you hear that?" I heard it on the radio this morning, we will see on the news tonight more about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. where did you hear that?I heard it on the radio this morning, we will see on the news tonight more about it." If that was the case; I am sure it would be "Breaking News" on sky; bbc, RT, and others of which it is not at this moment last I heard, the a federal appeals court was still considering whether to reinstate still, as you say, I am sure there will be more tonight as the day continues in USA | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do." Of course a judge can do that. A President has to follow the laws of his or her country just like everyone else. Or do you want to live in a dictatorship? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. where did you hear that?I heard it on the radio this morning, we will see on the news tonight more about it. If that was the case; I am sure it would be "Breaking News" on sky; bbc, RT, and others of which it is not at this moment last I heard, the a federal appeals court was still considering whether to reinstate still, as you say, I am sure there will be more tonight as the day continues in USA" That is right as it would be top news and yeah I might of misheard it as they talked about reinstating it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. Of course a judge can do that. A President has to follow the laws of his or her country just like everyone else. Or do you want to live in a dictatorship?" That is right as a judge can do do that, although you can argue that brexit is the same thing with immigration and to send them home and no, wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship, but it would be good to give some leeway of vetting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just to lighten things up; . "wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship" . There is a dictatorship in my home & land, I decide who enters and who stays out "Still someone has authority over you. Are you above the law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just to lighten things up; . "wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship" . There is a dictatorship in my home & land, I decide who enters and who stays out
Still someone has authority over you. Are you above the law?"I acknowledge, respect & obey most laws | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. Of course a judge can do that. A President has to follow the laws of his or her country just like everyone else. Or do you want to live in a dictatorship?That is right as a judge can do do that, although you can argue that brexit is the same thing with immigration and to send them home and no, wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship, but it would be good to give some leeway of vetting." Give some leeway for vetting? That's the question really isn't it? What is wrong with the current process and why is it OK for Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the 9/11 bombers came from but not for countries who's nationals haven't attacked the US? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. Of course a judge can do that. A President has to follow the laws of his or her country just like everyone else. Or do you want to live in a dictatorship?That is right as a judge can do do that, although you can argue that brexit is the same thing with immigration and to send them home and no, wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship, but it would be good to give some leeway of vetting. Give some leeway for vetting? That's the question really isn't it? What is wrong with the current process and why is it OK for Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the 9/11 bombers came from but not for countries who's nationals haven't attacked the US?" don't you think they are cleaver enough to recruit someone well away from their own country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What is wrong with the current process and why is it OK for Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the 9/11 bombers came from but not for countries who's nationals haven't attacked the US? don't you think they are cleaver enough to recruit someone well away from their own country "Like the USA? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"President Donald Trump's executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US is one of his most popular so far, according to polls . The order has a 55% approval rating (with 35% saying they "strongly approve") with only 38% of voters polled saying they disapprove of it. Opinions about the ban fall along partisan lines — 82% of Republicans support the ban, while 65% of Democrats oppose it. " In 2003, 54% of people surveyed by YouGov said that Britain should go to war to stop Saddam Hussein and 38% thought that going to war was wrong. Less than 10% were on the fence. Opinion polls reflect the lies that people are subjected to and not necessarily the reality of the world around them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"President Donald Trump's executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US is one of his most popular so far, according to polls . The order has a 55% approval rating (with 35% saying they "strongly approve") with only 38% of voters polled saying they disapprove of it. Opinions about the ban fall along partisan lines — 82% of Republicans support the ban, while 65% of Democrats oppose it. " OK, so let's take a closer look at this. This was Morning Consult's National Tracking poll of 2070 people. That represents 0.0006% of the population. It does seem they have managed to get a reasonable cross section of people, looking at the actual raw poll data. But if you are someone who thinks polls are inaccurate, you might want to bear in mind the sample size of this poll. That being said, there are some interesting results in the data. The poll actually asked 29 questions, of which the result you talk about above was just one of them. Some other interesting stats quickly skimming the results: "Now, generally speaking, would you say that things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?" 40% Right direction 60% Wrong track So in general people do think the country is 'gotten off on the wrong track'. I presume by the wording, they mean since Trump has come in... but a bit ambiguous. A surprising one was the topic of abortion and overturning Roe vs Wade. Every single religious group, including roman catholic think that it should stay. The *only* religious sector to say it should be overturned is evangelicals with 46-36% saying overturn it. Another interesting question: "As you may know, one of President Trumps central campaign promises was to Make America Great Again. About how long does he have to fill this promise to Make America Great Again?". Overall the largest response, of 29% was "America was already great before Trump elected". And interestingly Republican Women had the lowest percentage that it was great before Trump 3%, and the highest percentage of "Trump has already made America great" 13%. But other than that, most of the results fall along the lines you'd expect: If you are rich, white, male, less educated, older or christian you think he is doing good and like his policies. If you are poorer, non-white, female, more educated, or non-christian then you don't think he is doing well and don't like his policies/EOs. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now back. I knew all the time that a judge cant decide what a president want to do. Of course a judge can do that. A President has to follow the laws of his or her country just like everyone else. Or do you want to live in a dictatorship?That is right as a judge can do do that, although you can argue that brexit is the same thing with immigration and to send them home and no, wouldnt be good to live in a dictatorship, but it would be good to give some leeway of vetting. Give some leeway for vetting? That's the question really isn't it? What is wrong with the current process and why is it OK for Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the 9/11 bombers came from but not for countries who's nationals haven't attacked the US? don't you think they are cleaver enough to recruit someone well away from their own country "You mean like an EU, UK or US citizen? They already have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"judges rule..... 3-0 in favour of the states against trump..... the ban is suspended 29 pages.... reading it now, and its not a great read.... watch for trump on twitter in the next few hours...... "I'm reading it now, too.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"judges rule..... 3-0 in favour of the states against trump..... the ban is suspended 29 pages.... reading it now, and its not a great read.... watch for trump on twitter in the next few hours......
I'm reading it now, too.
"Hmmm Very interesting jurisdiction arguments by the court. I expected pretty strong language on judicial review and separation of powers and it was certainly there. Trump and the DoJ make a mistake arguing that the EO was unreviewable, in my opinion. There's nothing so much like god in heaven as a judge in a courtroom! I think the argument about due process and the extension of the 1st amendment to aliens is going to be key moving forward. I think Trump is wasting time fighting the TRO instead of just arguing in the district court on the merits. He's losing heavily on procedural grounds. He can't see the forest for the trees and he's his own worst enemy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"judges rule..... 3-0 in favour of the states against trump..... the ban is suspended 29 pages.... reading it now, and its not a great read.... watch for trump on twitter in the next few hours...... "Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. " Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now."I think you're right about just trying to win. It doesn't help him that he keeps insulting the judiciary, either. They have to defend their own power and authority. But he's allowing the courts to create pretty liberal judicial precedent on national security oversight and rights afforded to aliens, so I'll take it. If I were Jeff Sessions I'd advise Trump to swallow what pride he has left and just rewrite the EO. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. " So statesmanlike | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. So statesmanlike" They got what they voted gor | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So britain want to stop refugge children to come in and send home millions of polish and eu members and they say what trump is doing is wrong? lol." It was a procedural decision. All the court did was refuse to stay the temporary restraining order of the district court. A full case on the merits hasn't happened yet - so no one has yet said what trump is doing is wrong. And anyway, the decision of the federal circuit is made based on the U.S. Constitution. They, and indeed most people in America, don't care about what's happening in Britain, never mind it mattering on legal grounds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"judges rule..... 3-0 in favour of the states against trump..... the ban is suspended 29 pages.... reading it now, and its not a great read.... watch for trump on twitter in the next few hours......
Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!"
Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. "You forgot the caps
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The way the judges decision is written makes me think that trump would have trouble winning a decision in a 9 person right leaning Supreme Court, let alone the 8 it is at the moment...and a 4-4 tie would keep the decision of the lower court As someone else said... if I was ag sessions I would tell trump to swallow the decision and revoke the EO... He can try and fight judges but he can't fight the constitution " Didn't he say something like he never gets to court with cases and always settles beforehand? Or have I got that wrong? If that is the case, how much does he think it will cost to buy the US out of it's constitution in an out of course settlement? He's running the US as a business right? So he can do that, right? Just a matter of cost, right?
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now."I would say the supreme court ruling in the UK actually worked in the government's favour because it made clear to the devolved Parliaments that only the UK Parliament in Westminster would have the final say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I would say the supreme court ruling in the UK actually worked in the government's favour because it made clear to the devolved Parliaments that only the UK Parliament in Westminster would have the final say. " Possibly they did bring the case to clarify the position of the devolved Parliaments, but the government certainly weren't expressing that view. They appealed on the basis that the UK Parliament did not have sovereignty in this matter. The regional Parliaments added their concerns to the hearing. The UK government knew full well that their position was unsound. The same goes for Trump's team. Both governments displaying hubris at the start of their tenures. Both could save time and effort and public money and do something more constructive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So britain want to stop refugge children to come in and send home millions of polish and eu members and they say what trump is doing is wrong? lol." No , Britain doesn't; just the government and a minority of bigoted xenophobes.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"good news.... trump has decided not to take this version of his EO to the supreme court... bad news.... looks like a new version of this EO is coming early next week.... lets see if they learn their lesson this time... the judges gave them the template!" Do you think there is much chance of that? I doubt it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now.
I think you're right about just trying to win. It doesn't help him that he keeps insulting the judiciary, either. They have to defend their own power and authority.
But he's allowing the courts to create pretty liberal judicial precedent on national security oversight and rights afforded to aliens, so I'll take it. If I were Jeff Sessions I'd advise Trump to swallow what pride he has left and just rewrite the EO.". Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." . Trump's executive order must be illegal - "why"???, he is certainly not the first president to make use of Section 212(f) after 1965. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan used it to bar “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas," while in 1986, he used it to bar Cuban nationals, with some exceptions. In 1994, Bill Clinton used it to bar anyone in the Haitian military or government affiliated with the 1991 coup d’état that overthrew the democratically-elected president. Ten years later, George W. Bush used it to bar corrupt members of the government of Zimbabwe from entering the U.S. And in 2012, Barack Obama used it to bar hackers aiding Iran and Syria. . It will be re-written | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So britain want to stop refugge children to come in and send home millions of polish and eu members and they say what trump is doing is wrong? lol. No , Britain doesn't; just the government and a minority of bigoted xenophobes...." What is it with you and xenophobia?? At which point do you or anyone think immigration will fall in the UK??? The immigrants will still be in the same numbers only difference being is the selection process and that the UK can choose who comes and what skills are needed rather than a preferential system where being born in Africa or Asia means you have less chance than some bloke from France because he don't need a visa. If anything it's a far fairer system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So britain want to stop refugge children to come in and send home millions of polish and eu members and they say what trump is doing is wrong? lol. No , Britain doesn't; just the government and a minority of bigoted xenophobes.... What is it with you and xenophobia?? At which point do you or anyone think immigration will fall in the UK??? The immigrants will still be in the same numbers only difference being is the selection process and that the UK can choose who comes and what skills are needed rather than a preferential system where being born in Africa or Asia means you have less chance than some bloke from France because he don't need a visa. If anything it's a far fairer system. " The first comment was about ending the resettlement of Syrian refugee children in the UK not immigration in general. Would we close our doors to fair skinned Christian children? Would sending home EU citizens (not really likely but apparently an acceptable negotiating point) be OK? In the context of these two points I'd be reluctant to use the term xenophobic part it is not inappropriate either. In the context of general immigration then no. However, that isn't the case in point here. Direct your outrage more appropriately as I agree that there are posts on both sides worthy of it. Just not in this case I think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now.
I think you're right about just trying to win. It doesn't help him that he keeps insulting the judiciary, either. They have to defend their own power and authority.
But he's allowing the courts to create pretty liberal judicial precedent on national security oversight and rights afforded to aliens, so I'll take it. If I were Jeff Sessions I'd advise Trump to swallow what pride he has left and just rewrite the EO.
.
Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
.
Trump's executive order must be illegal - "why"???, he is certainly not the first president to make use of Section 212(f) after 1965. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan used it to bar “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas," while in 1986, he used it to bar Cuban nationals, with some exceptions. In 1994, Bill Clinton used it to bar anyone in the Haitian military or government affiliated with the 1991 coup d’état that overthrew the democratically-elected president. Ten years later, George W. Bush used it to bar corrupt members of the government of Zimbabwe from entering the U.S. And in 2012, Barack Obama used it to bar hackers aiding Iran and Syria.
.
It will be re-written"To achieve its intention should enhanced screening not be extended all middle eastern states with known terrorist cells. In fact, the highest risk countries would appear to be European and US citizens radicalised through the internet. Obviously they can't prevent themselves from travelling to their own country but they should really be checking out our Facebook accounts too right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just saw the tweet from the Donald on sky news "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!" Looks like Trump will take this to the Supreme court now then. Trump tells judges that he'll see them in court?
Our government took a case to the Supreme Court that it knew it shouldn't recently.
I don't have any idea about how the US system functions but get the sense that if he wasn't such a narcissist he'd have given up and refracted something properly.
He's just trying to "win" now.
I think you're right about just trying to win. It doesn't help him that he keeps insulting the judiciary, either. They have to defend their own power and authority.
But he's allowing the courts to create pretty liberal judicial precedent on national security oversight and rights afforded to aliens, so I'll take it. If I were Jeff Sessions I'd advise Trump to swallow what pride he has left and just rewrite the EO.
.
Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
.
Trump's executive order must be illegal - "why"???, he is certainly not the first president to make use of Section 212(f) after 1965. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan used it to bar “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas," while in 1986, he used it to bar Cuban nationals, with some exceptions. In 1994, Bill Clinton used it to bar anyone in the Haitian military or government affiliated with the 1991 coup d’état that overthrew the democratically-elected president. Ten years later, George W. Bush used it to bar corrupt members of the government of Zimbabwe from entering the U.S. And in 2012, Barack Obama used it to bar hackers aiding Iran and Syria.
.
It will be re-written"You cite section 212 (f), but you don't say what law you are actually citing. It is a federal statute. It was authority given by Congress. It's the same thing Trump keeps repeating. What you and Trump fail to recognise is that even that federal statute must conform to the US Constitution. Congress cannot grant the president powers it does not have itself. So the powers granted under that quoted section are still subject to the US Constitution. As I noted in a separate comment above, the federal district and appelate courts were concerned with the sections of the constitution relating to due process and freedom of religion. Until trump supporters, and indeed Trump himself, acknowledge this conflict with constitutional principles they are going to have a hard time writing an EO that falls within the constitution's allowable parameters. I don't need to make the legal point because the 9th circuit did an infinitely better job in its recent ruling. Read that if you're confused. The interim Attorney General, several district courts, and an Appellate Court hadserious questions about the constitutionality of the executive order AS IT WAS WRITTEN. It can be rewritten to be restrictive but not unconstitutional. That's what he'll do because he knows he is fighting a losing battle on the issue of legality. I dont know why people who know next to nothing about American law, never mind having an American legal degree, keep arguing to the contrary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know much about the American legal system or what the other eight circuits are like, but I definitely like the ninth one. "I thought there were more... I am sure I have heard of the 12th circuit in Texas or Florida... Somewhere down on the Gulf... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know much about the American legal system or what the other eight circuits are like, but I definitely like the ninth one.
I thought there were more...
I am sure I have heard of the 12th circuit in Texas or Florida...
Somewhere down on the Gulf..."There are 13 Courts in the Appellate Division. 12 are geographical (11 numbered plus the D.C. cicuit) then there is the Federal Circuit which is defined by subject matter jurisdiction (most notably in patent cases). The 9th circuit is important because it covers the largest number of people - over 20% of the US population. Texas is in the 5th circuit. Florida is in the 11th. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know much about the American legal system or what the other eight circuits are like, but I definitely like the ninth one.
I thought there were more...
I am sure I have heard of the 12th circuit in Texas or Florida...
Somewhere down on the Gulf...
There are 13 Courts in the Appellate Division. 12 are geographical (11 numbered plus the D.C. cicuit) then there is the Federal Circuit which is defined by subject matter jurisdiction (most notably in patent cases).
The 9th circuit is important because it covers the largest number of people - over 20% of the US population.
Texas is in the 5th circuit. Florida is in the 11th."Thanks, nice post, explains much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just for your interest, Boris' chat with the Americans doesn't seems to be quite working: " Yeah, quite something when they are now banning the Welsh from travelling there. I live in Bristol and even we let them across the bridge
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah, quite something when they are now banning the Welsh from travelling there. I live in Bristol and even we let them across the bridge
-Matt"That's a serious mistake! If your not careful they will be pouring out of the Valleys with their rugby teams and male voice choirs singing 'Men of Harlech' at you! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
