Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35890227)

Or just assemble a team that can write an order that's actually legal, I'm surprised we can't hear the alarm bells ringing in the American publics ears from here, to get it wrong again after last time shows a breath taking level of incompetence imo

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35890262)

Or the liberalisation of America, under Obama, where political correctness ruled the day. That's why one of Trumps main policy pledges was to a appoint, to the Supreme Court, judges who would uphold the Constitution; not the wishy-washy liberal judges that Hilary wanted to appoint. It was a very popular policy. And he has fulfilled that promise with his first Supreme Court appointment.


Americans are not blind to the liberalisation of the judicial system.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35890266)

This isn't new either, it didn't start under Obama, the court has been a battleground for liberals and conservatives for ages. Abortion is still one of the big examples.

.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35890211)

This is pure political motivated BS. The Federal Judge in Hawaii, was appointed by Barack Obama in 2012. Enough said. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35890230)

Wind your neck in. :rolleyes:

He has not made any 'stuff' up AND more importantly, his Executive Order that was due to start today, went through thorough legality checks.

The EO was released well over a week ago. I find it too convenient that this Hawaiian Federal Judge brought in by Obama in 2012, put a halt to it, hours before it's due to start, why not last week? Why not 3 or 4 days after EO was signed?

This was done for maximum embarrassment impact, i.e a ' politically motivated action clearly by an Activist Judge. The fact that two of his orders have been blocked is nothing short of a judicial coup against President Trump.

The President of the United States has EXCLUSIVE and SPECIFIC authority, to do what Trump's EO did and the Constitution does not grant any State any authority over immigration.

The US District Court Authority, to issue orders outside of their own geographical/jurisdictional venues, that affect the nation at large, are an over stretch of their respective jurisdiction. Only the Supreme Court should be able to issue nationwide decisions. e.g: The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has nationwide jurisdiction only in SELECTED cases.

There are 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals. When there is disagreement between circuits, it's finally up to the Supreme Court to decide what the law is.

President Trump is well within his authority under 8USC, Sec. 1182 to exclude ALL non-citizen aliens who may pose a threat to the USA for whatever period of time he so desires and I would say those countries that do not do thorough checks on who enters and leaves their borders or share specific intelligence, he has a right to ban those citizens of those countries, whatever race or religion they are.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------



No it's bloody not. I stand by it.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35890308)

You called him an activist judge - what else has he done to warrant that label?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35890313)

But what has he specifically done to deserve that label?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35890315)

I suggest you re-read my post(s) in which I say why. You're not telling me this is not a politically motivated move, especially when several judges, not one or two, several, have said it is wrong to block the executive actions of the President, specifically when it comes to immigration.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35890319)

As we saw with the Brexit case which the UK Government lost, not all judges agree with one another, that's why multiple judges are consulted on important matters.
I've read nothing in your posts to support your assertion that the the judge in question is an activist judge. I get that you don't agree with his judgment and that some judges disagree with him too...whilst some judges agree with him.
But nothing I've read says activist and Hugh's point about him being voted for 94-0 by the Republican-dominated Senate seems to make him an unlikely activist.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35890230)

Wind your neck in. :rolleyes:

He has not made any 'stuff' up AND more importantly, his Executive Order that was due to start today, went through thorough legality checks.

The EO was released well over a week ago. I find it too convenient that this Hawaiian Federal Judge brought in by Obama in 2012, put a halt to it, hours before it's due to start, why not last week? Why not 3 or 4 days after EO was signed?

This was done for maximum embarrassment impact, i.e a totally politically motivated action clearly by an Activist Judge. The fact that two of his orders have been blocked is nothing short of a judicial coup against President Trump.

The President of the United States has EXCLUSIVE and SPECIFIC authority, to do what Trump's EO did and the Constitution does not grant any State any authority over immigration.

The US District Court Authority, to issue orders outside of their own geographical/jurisdictional venues, that affect the nation at large, are an over stretch of their respective jurisdiction. Only the Supreme Court should be able to issue nationwide decisions. e.g: The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has nationwide jurisdiction only in SELECTED cases.

There are 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals. When there is disagreement between circuits, it's finally up to the Supreme Court to decide what the law is.

President Trump is well within his authority under 8USC, Sec. 1182 to exclude ALL non-citizen aliens who may pose a threat to the USA for whatever period of time he so desires and I would say those countries that do not do thorough checks on who enters and leaves their borders or share specific intelligence, he has a right to ban those citizens of those countries, whatever race or religion they are.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------



No it's bloody not. I stand by it.