This thread is now off limits .

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
cadman
Doesn't take 3 branches of govt. to become law. Once federal judiciary says the state law is constitutional.... bang, new precedence.
Here is a example judicial law creating, this happened with Fourth Circuit Court:
Court sets law

> Cadman, the example you showed nullified an
existing law. The court created no new law.



From the link Court sets law, 1st paragraph:

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, the first such decision of its kind."

Further in the article:

"The decision is binding on the five states of the Fourth Circuit -- Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia."

The Law/Decision, has basically told the states of the Fourth Circuit Court what they can or cannot do. Sounds like a law to me.

Quote
Sod-buster
Let's look at this higher court ruling on the executive branch's ruling on the travel ban.

The court here is dead WRONG. Why? The statue is clear as a bell here giving the President full authority to do what he did.

When you read the statute and the US Constitution, A US President doesn't even have to give a reason for doing.

Statues are "clear" until challenged in court, then they are not. Weak laws are on the books in every state. The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

Conservatives claim that courts lack the authority to review the president's travel ban. Hardly... from the ruling [apps.npr.org] :

"[T]he government has taken the position that the president's decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. ... There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. "It is beyond question, that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

Trump can't ban a group of people that results in an 'injury' of a group of US citizens. The state of Washington claimed that the travel ban injured the State's economy and state universities. The court agreed with the state's claim.

No president can ban travelers because they are Black, or female, or go by the name 'Massoud.' A federal court would correctly strike down those bans too.

Quote
Sod-buster
Elections have consequences, and we hope they are good ones.

So far all indications are that reality is 'trumping' hope.

Quote
Sod-buster
Thank God Trump got elected and not Hillary.

I'm sure the Nazis thanked God for a successful Polish campaign in 1939...

Quote
cadman
From the link Court sets law, 1st paragraph:

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, the first such decision of its kind."

Sounds like a law to me.

"Must allow" nullifies the law that said otherwise. The underlying freedom is implied and guaranteed by the Constitution.

Another similar example... "Brown v. Board of Education" did not create any law, instead it nullified state segregation laws mainly found in the South.

I knew I shouldn't have looked at this thread! Arrrrrgh...but I did for 3 pages worth.

Same old crap..Trump supporters still supporting...with renewed passion if anything (as misplaced as it is).

Best thing I saw was the "Time will tell" statement. YEP...I am SURE it will!

What I found interesting is that no one is mentioning the criticism of Trump coming from the Republican side...for example John Boehner.

Trump's handlers will supposedly make a lot of changes to help fight the overwhelming legal pressure coming to bear on his presidency. Vetting his twitter rants will surely help. Or is this too...Fake News?

What's that saying? "If you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen" My advice to Donald: Hey you are 70 years old..do the right thing..your health is important..life will be much easier!

Joe

PS: Here's HOPING this thread dissolves!

20,200 views, over 800 posts............what does that tell you? Some do care about the direction of this country.....some just want to detect.....some like to discuss things with the good ole boys.

Go-rebels.

Past presidents have issued travel bans.

Any time they do,any said person, group or court could imply some group is hurt.
The statue doesn't say anything about this at all.
Purely the president's decision based on protecting the USA.

Like Insaid above,if anything the 9th circuit should have ruled the statue is unconstitutional.
Since they didn't do so, could we presume they indeed think the statue is constitutional.

I mean should we expect future presidents to issue travel bans if necessary.

Their ruling was a personal one against Trump, not a professional ruling against the executive branch.
Their quoting Trump what he said as a candidate is proof.

Here is an example, what if a presidential candidate doesn't believe a gay person is really born being gay, and says this while campaigning.
Then they are elected and the court uses this in their decison on a case where the executive branch issues a executive order.
Whether or not the executive order is constitutional or not doesn't have a thing to do with what a presidential candidate says.
Actually this shows the court is biased.
They could say the elected president is biased, but they the court are supposed to be free of bias, rule strictly on the constitution and laws.
Notice go-Rebels, no person is holding a set of scales in front of the Whitehouse
Go look at the SCOTUS building..

How a person feels personally (the plaintiff or the defendant) about something is not how a court makes rulings.
If this were the case, we would indeed have a full blown banana republic.

I encourage you to read up more on law, the constitution, etc.

I personally could be involved in a case that would eventually go to the SCOTUS, anyone here really.
Wonder if this person says publically they hate the SCOTUS or this is revealed during presentations to the high court.
Should this matter in the least as to the highest court's decision?
Nope.

Any travel ban ever done as far as coming to the USA, someone somewhere will be hurt.
This statue was not conditional from what I seen, even in the least bit.
And notice, an order here by the president doesn't even have to have congressional approval in the slightest.
Why?
For good reason.
Time is of the essence, and the President is in the position (with Intel, etc) to make such decisions.
Keyword here is they are usually temporary.

I could make a case that every executive order a president of the USA isaues affects someone somewhere negatively.
Should this be grounds for not issuing, or for a higher court to get involved ?
Nope

It is called making decisions in the best interest of the USA.
We give the president this power when we elect him.
Now if down the road this doesn't play well politically, oh well.
And this is why we have elections.
And term limits on the president too.

If you will go back and review, the Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt said this very thing as far as I think the ruling done on the affordable care act.
He said, the law could be changed, if the politics drove to to be done.

You see the democrats couldn't beat Trump, so they think they can use the unelected court judges to beat him.
Won't work.
SCOTUS will see to this.

Now, if I thought for one minute what Trump did was wrong(unconstitutional) I would be the first to say.
This is to me purely about common sense and the constitution and current law(s).

We are a country of laws btw, and we should be.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 01:04AM by Sod-buster.

I would like to see Tom Dankowski be the next President of the United States because he is honest and intelligent, two qualities you don't find in most politicians...

Quote
Sod-buster
Any time they do,any said person, group or court could imply some group is hurt. The statue doesn't say anything about this at all. Purely the president's decision based on protecting the USA.

Like Insaid above,if anything the 9th circuit should have ruled the statue is unconstitutional. Since they didn't do so, could we presume they indeed think the statue is constitutional.

The constitutionality of the statute was never in question. The question always revolved around the potential benefit versus the resultant pain.

From the Ruling; ( [assets.documentcloud.org] )

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

Quote
Sod-buster
Their ruling was a personal one against Trump, not a professional ruling against the executive branch

No sir, not against Trump as a person and not against the Executive Branch. Their ruling was against the Executive order. The Ruling was clear in this regard:

Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

Quote
Sod-buster
Should this matter in the least as to the highest court's decision? Nope.

I would hope so. And while the 9th's court ruling may be overturned, I wouldn't be surprised to see it stand.

Quote
Sod-buster
And notice, an order here by the president doesn't even have to have congressional approval in the slightest. Why?

By definition all Executive Orders need no congressional approval.

Quote
Sod-buster
For good reason. Time is of the essence, and the President is in the position (with Intel, etc) to make such decisions.

Explain the urgency. The Executive Branch certainly didn't.

Quote
Sod-buster
We give the president this power when we elect him.

The President's power is limited by the Constitution. We did not elect a king.

Quote
Sod-buster
Now, if I thought for one minute what Trump did was wrong(unconstitutional) I would be the first to say.

The great thing about our country is that it's not up to you, I, Steve Bannon, or Paul Ryan to decide. It's up to the courts.

---

A fresh article from yesterday:

Trump travel ban on shaky ground

[thehill.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 01:07PM by go-rebels.

I figure this is what winning looks like:

Angela Merkel says Germany can no longer rely on Donald Trump's America: 'We Europeans must take our destiny into our own hands'

Ms Merkel said that as the traditional western alliance is threatened by the new US presidency and Brexit, “the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.”

[www.independent.co.uk]

Who needs European intel anyway?

Go rebels, this statue give the president the authorization to do travel bans as he sees fit.

This would pertain to non us citizens likely.

I don't think any previous travel bans were challenged by the courts.

Like I and you said,,the statue was not deemed unconstitutional and is written like it is.

This the way it is written,,is so the executive branch doesn't have to prove anything.
Why?
Because in doing so would mean discussion of possible classified materials, even by a court.

How long has this statue been on the books?

And let's face it, how would a person (executive branch) prove a possible say attack?
Sounds stupid right.

We can never prove what another country, or another group of folks would or might do.
The executive branch must act on what they know, and in the best interest of the USA when it comes to defending the country.
Defending the USA is the president's top responsibility as outlined in the constitution.

According to this statue, the way it is written, Trump could ban red heads from entering, even one legged men if he wanted.

In a court of law on this matter, too much info has to be made public, and this is dangerous, and to me would mean, why have the statue in the first place.

We have seen in the past few years, for whatever reason the left wants to treat non US citizens more and more like actual US citizens.

I am proud to be an American citizen.

But if we are not careful this being an American citizen will it seems mean very little if things don't change.

We see this garbage going on with the illegals too.

Where was Obama's proof,here when he did what he did?
Was anyone inside the USA, were they negatively affected?
Of course someone was.
[truthfeed.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 04:33PM by Sod-buster.

I'm REALLY going to stop reading these things!

Sod Buster: Statues? really? WTF? You are an American citizen by birth?

Anyone who supported and voted for Hillary can't be all that smart. I can see someone not wanting Trump for president, but wanting Crooked Hillary instead is completely insane.

tabman

Quote
Sod-buster
Go rebels, this statue give the president the authorization to do travel bans as he sees fit.

As I showed you earlier, that is not true. He is not an autocrat, not a king.

Quote
Sod-buster
This would pertain to non us citizens likely.

Likely? Trump's OE banned permanent residents with green cards!

Quote
Sod-buster
According to this statue, the way it is written, Trump could ban red heads from entering, even one legged men if he wanted.

Nope, he can't. Did you read the written response from the 9th?

Quote
Sod-buster
In a court of law on this matter, too much info has to be made public, and this is dangerous, and to me would mean, why have the statue in the first place.

Again, not true. Federal courts regularly get confidential information and rule on it without making the contents public. [www.slate.com]

Quote
Sod-buster
Was anyone inside the USA, were they negatively affected? Of course someone was.

Did anyone sue? Why not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2017 12:47AM by go-rebels.

It wasn't like there were more than two choices. Hillary or Donnie? That was a very pathetic pair to chose from. She was a very unpopular candidate and he was only slightly better. He had the edge because he was considered an outsider. Someone new and a game changer. Well the saying seems to be correct. You don't change Washington....Washington changes you. The democrat party is going through change. It was pretty dysfunctional during the election. Losing does that. The goal remains the same. Beat the other unpopular candidate.

[fivethirtyeight.com]

Oops...

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [fivethirtyeight.com]-
> income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
> aa
> Oops...

What's your point here go-rebels?

This guy Silver, I guess he has one of these big degrees or some thing, you reckon?
And he was dead wrong on the electoral math before the election.
Hind sight even for a fool is likely 20/20.


Just remember, a degree does not raise your IQ.
And would it be safe to say, the folks who we're living more comfortable would stay with the status quo candidate?
See if you can reason your way through this.

Big ole Hillary has a degree too, what happened to her?
I mean Trump even told her how he was going to beat her.
Rust belt.
How much time, and how many rust belt states did Hillary campaign in hard?

You see, consider this.
We see Hillary shunned Trump after he revealed how he would beat her.
Hillary basically set on the fence.

Now imagine if Hillary would have been elected, and a country or group told the USA/her how they were going to beat us or attack us.
Would it be fair to say Hillary again likely to sit on the fence, and do very little.

Campaigns are about managing resources, communications, money, time, being able to interpret your opponent and take action, etc
And in the end the way the founding spfathers saw it, the best person who does all this will win.

Hence Hillary is a loser.
And Obama did what Trump did.
Took advantage of a bad politician, who can't manage even 2 campaigns much less the Office of President.

Funny thing, she had a good teacher, or so she thought-Bubba.
You know the dude that said Obama care was the craziest thing he had ever seen.

And remember all citizens get just one vote, irregardless of their education, or IQ for that matter.

Wonder if we hooked everyone up to a lie detector and polled them.
As far as the presidential campaign, which candidate by their total actions wanted the job the most?
And which candidate by their actions or lack thereof wanted the job basically handed to them?
Think about this go-rebels, this is the "why" behind Trump's victory,

And to include Trump was packing his own water, unlike Hillary, she had every democrat out there packing her water for her, even Obama and his wife and yes even ole Bernie who sold his soul to the devil.
And they couldn't find enough big pails evidently to pack enough water to get her across the finsish line.

Go-rebels, do me a favor, go back and look at the first democratic debate they had back in the 2008 campaign.
There was an exchange with Hillary and Obama.
This one exchange sums up Hillary to a tee, and clearly showed her poor political skills,ect.
And this what she did/said in this debate I'm referring to, carried right over into her 2016 campaign.
Goes to show,can't teach old dogs new tricks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2017 01:52AM by Sod-buster.

If the Mainstream News Media had been just as thorough and harsh in their coverage of Hillary as they did Trump, she couldn't have run for dog catcher and won.

She is really that bad and there are people out there that are totally bent out of shape that she didn't win. Now that's crazy. You'd have be a real fool to want her for President. A total wacko!

tabman

Quote
Sod-buster
What's your point here go-rebels?

Educated people tended to vote Clinton; the uneducated went for Trump.

Quote
Sod-buster
This guy Silver, I guess he has one of these big degrees or some thing, you reckon? And he was dead wrong on the electoral math before the election.

Mate Silver has a bachelors degree from the U of Chicago in economics and five honorary doctoral degrees. He became famous by applying statistics in baseball.

Silver gave Clinton a 66% chance of winning the election hardly a prediction anyone would bet the house on. He predicted she would win the popular vote by 3%; she won that by ~2.5%.

Quote
Sod-buster
Hence Hillary is a loser.

Hillary certainly lost the election. We all lost when Trump took office. My comfortable lifestyle and investments are all at risk with a 'do-nothing' in the WH.

Quote
Sod-buster
And remember all citizens get just one vote, irregardless of their education, or IQ for that matter.

I wonder why Faux News never brings up what the Founding Fathers might think of this today. Of course Blacks couldn't vote, nor could Indians, women or poor white men. Heck, substitute, uneducated for "poor" and the Founding Fathers would have had no problem with it (apologies to the Deplorables amongst us.)

Quote
Sod-buster
And which candidate by their actions or lack there of wanted the job basically handed to them?

Funny thing is that Trump appears to no longer want the job. The citizens see him floundering around, getting nothing done, and have rewarded him with the worst approval rating of any young president in history.

DONALD TRUMP'S APPROVAL RATING SINKS AS WHITE VOTERS, REPUBLICANS WITHDRAW SUPPORT

[www.newsweek.com]

It's funny... you won't find this news on a Fox News broadcasting:

Fox News poll: Approval ratings for Trump, Pence fall to all-time lows

[www.washingtonexaminer.com]

Maybe it's not too early to look at the title of this thread again: "Who would you like to see as our next president?"

Go- rebels,

The fool democrats would nominate Hillary again wouldn't they.
And you know what will happen?

I don't live my life based on polls.
If Trump would have, he would have quit early on.

I just love it, when the nutjobs try and justify Hillary's loss with the Russians.

Seems Trump was an astute student of Ronnie.
And Hillary was an astute student of Al.

Tell you what, nominate Donna Brazile next time around, she can help herself to the her own debate questions.
She win for sure. And she can put that dimwit female politician from Florida on the ticket with her, you know the one that cheated Bernie.

Your side is loaded with race horses it seems-NOT.
Watch out for Zuckerberg, he's your man.
Trump's victory has inspired him.
He's already starting to talk like a politician.
Just think he can use Facebook like no tomorrow to campaign.

Wanta bet on this one?
How about a $20 contribution to this forum?

You up for it?
I know more about your own party than even you do.

To clarify the wager here- for a forum contribution.
Zuckerberg will run 2020
Trump won't run in 2020
There will be a female on the Republican ticket in 2020.
I got $20 here with all this coming true.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2017 03:58AM by Sod-buster.

Quote
tabman
If the Mainstream News Media had been just as thorough and harsh in their coverage of Hillary as they did Trump, she couldn't have run for dog catcher and won.

Right... like they ignored Benghazi and the email server...

Quote
Sod-buster
I just love it, when the nutjobs try and justify Hillary's loss with the Russians.

It seems the Deplorables just can't separate Russia from Hillary's loss. They are independent of each other. Like you said, Hillary was a weak candidate and she lost because of that alone.

What surprises me is how so many Right Wing Nut Jobs have turned into Commie lovers as they salivate over the Trump-Putin bromance...

I humbly suggest that all, enjoy about twenty minutes of enlightenment.

[bit.ly]

Trump kept another promise today! We've finally got a president with some cajones!

[realclimatescience.com]

Trump is working, Hillary is still making excuses.

No reason to follow Europe down this black hole with this Paris thingy on climate.
If China and India don't heed,why even bother?
That's is where all the polluters are anyway.

Kill our jobs for the rest of the world?
Nope,Godzilla sees right through this fog.

Just like telling the supposed members of NATO, pay your dues.
No freeloaders!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 01:32AM by Sod-buster.

bado1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump kept another promise today! We've finally go
> t a president with some cajones!
Without brains and common sense, cajones will just get a person in trouble. (More trouble)

Hobo, did you read the Paris Accord? If you had, you would know that this was a case of brains and balls. Score one for the US on this one.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
tabman
If the Mainstream News Media had b
> een just as thorough and harsh in their coverage o
> f Hillary as they did Trump, she couldn't have run
> for dog catcher and won.

>
> Right... like they ignored Benghazi and the email
> server...

If Benghazi and the email server had been Trump's baby, the Mainstream News Media reporters and writers would have been having a hissy fits and foaming at the mouth. Hillary got off easy.

tabman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 05:13PM by tabman.

Who's Hillary? The Deplorables are infatuated with her.

The Paris Accord allowed countries to set their own targets. The Orangeman whined that the targets we set for ourselves weren't fair.

Dummy...

Trump calls it a travel ban — lawyers call it sabotage

[thehill.com]

Gotta love it that Trump undermines his own Muslim ban... at least he can blame the Judiciary for another failure, just in time after he gets a spanking from Comey...