U.S President: Donald Trump

[pip08456]

After the February ruling, some judges had called for a rehearing of the case by 11 judges rather than the original three. On Wednesday the call was denied. But five judges – Bybee, Kozinski, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta – dissented, saying the decision to halt the executive order was wrong.

The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration

Link (page 4)

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

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 passingbat

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.

The constitution requires interpretation. It's a point of contention. All the Justices on the Court 'uphold the constitution' but differ into what that means.

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.

Besides it's unlikely they'll be able to ban abortion or gay marriage at this point.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

.

You're right, it has been an on-going battle. However the liberal side did gain ground under Obama. I hate to think where it would have gone under Hillary.

Oops, looks like either Mcdonald's official Twitter account was hacked or someone (a now ex-employee) with an axe to grind against DJT, left a delicate tweet for him this morning:-

http://wlrn.org/post/mcdonalds-tweet...uickly-deleted

Trump to promote Burger King in 3...2...1....

Originally Posted by Mick

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

He was also voted for 94-0 by the Republican dominated Senate.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Wind your neck in.

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.

The judge was responding to the Hawaiian Attorney General's application - these things take time.

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

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Given that several other Judges have come out saying Trump has every right to restrict immigration and that it's wrong for Federal Judges to block his Executive actions, specifically over immigration, given that it is not open at State level, who have no authority to alter immigration wishes of the Executive Branch. I think my judgement is a fairly accurate assessment.

But what has he specifically done to deserve that label?

Originally Posted by Hugh

But what has he specifically done to deserve that label?

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

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 1andrew1

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.

Well, I have an opposing view and I am sticking to it.

Originally Posted by Mick

Wind your neck in.

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.

Trump has made stuff up ,his accusation that Obama bugged his offices is complete made up trash ,he keeps making stuff up to support his view point and when it's proven to be wrong he calls it fake news and mugs like you keep sucking it up .You can babble on as much as you like that Trump has the authority to do what he wants with EO's but the judges say different so once again you are wrong.

[1andrew1]

Senate panel rejects Trump wiretap claim
There are "no indications" that Trump Tower was under surveillance by the US government before or after the election, a Senate committee has said.
The statement from Senator Richard Burr, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed Donald Trump's claim that his phones were tapped.
Mr Trump had accused Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower during the presidential race.
Mr Burr joins a cadre of lawmakers who have rejected the allegation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39297439

This presidency will stand or fall in it's first year as much as I'm happy that a different type of person won the election Trump needs to adjust to his new position quicker then he is. He cannot continue running the presidency as he ran his business interests they are two different to work. Trump has some good ideas but he's too quick to use twitter and that's causing too many problems for it to continue for much longer or be accepted by even the republicans. He has been caught out a few times now putting it politely embelishing things and not reacting well when he is caught out it's not the way to be a president and he needs to find a way to put the whole Russia situation to bed as well because as long as that's not resolved his presidency will struggle.

I want Trump to succeed so that another nail is hammered in the coffin of the type of politician that's infested western politics for the last twenty years and i have no doubt Trump winning averted a serious problem with Russia that Clinton would have pushed perhaps going too far. That said he has to step up and adapt to the role and blind loyalty and defence of him is not going to help him do that, right now if your a real Trump supporter do him the biggest favour you can and admit his mistakes and show him that he has to change.