 |
Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
So Trump resubmits basically the same executive order and is shocked when a judge again stops it nationwide. Trump still refuses to understand the First Amendment - probably because he hasn't read it yet. By his own admission he reads one book a year - his own, and gets his news from Breitbart and Fox.
Not only is he insane, he is insanely uninformed.
How much longer?
I expect it will take a while for the outcome to be fully known. From what I've read this version of the ban was actually written with some thought behind it and was reviewed by appropriate agencies (unlike the first version). It seems to address on its surface all the issues raised by the courts previously. The problem with it is Trump's own campaign promises, which make it clear what the true intent is, and even his description of this order being simply a "watered down" version of the first. What he needs to do is provide arguments as to why visitors from these particular countries pose special risks compared to others, which is tough to do given the facts.
As for how much longer? 3 years, 10 months and a few days. Unless there's a change of the Senate makeup, combined with a scandal regarding the foreign emoluments clause (which I think is unlikely), impeachment ain't gonna happen. And he's not the kind of guy who would voluntarily resign (and be called a loser).
At 70, I believe he is in the early stages of dementia - based on his limited vocabulary and less than eloquent speech-making. When comparing Trump to his 70's and 80's persona, this aspect of Trump's downhill slide becomes apparent. His inner circle will be forced to make this determination for him. Most GOPers would greatly prefer Pence as president.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
Separately, the emoluments violations will be exposed more and more as the public becomes aware of them and the media feasts on them. These are unavoidable since Trump simply can't stop himself from enriching himself. He believes himself to be exempt, but that's another misunderstanding of an important principle.
Voluntarily resign? Never.
I totally disagree with you. CNNs Toobin, Dershowitz, and one other top lawyer were shocked by Hawaii and feel that it will win at the Supreme Court level. I am not a legal person, but when CNN legal team is shocked by the decision, it should give you pause.
They were shocked because the judge used past behavior that was overwhelming as to intent. But the judge also confronted the basic question directly and found the EO violated the First Amendment. He also found the new order not genuinely different from the first EO, as did a second judge from Maryland who also ruled against Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by leen321
If you're not a legal person, why would the CNN legal team give you pause?
there is no basis for the restraining order . The judge gave no consitututional grounds for his blocking it.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm not gonna argue with what the judge said because I didn't read the ruling..
However, in legal terms, irrespective of what you SAY, what you INTEND is germane.
Lemma ask you this. If you wanna keep Jews out of your community, you could pass a law that said you MUST shovel your walk on Saturday.. You don't have to mention Jews at all.. But, if a court DETERMINES that antisemitism, instead sidewalks, was the reason for the law, it IS unconstitutional..
That Trump called for a Muslim ban on the campaign trail IS germane..
excon
The judge granted a TRO on Trumps EO, so the ball is in Trumps court for the next step in the process. That's what he gets for shooting his big mouth off yet again!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Trump said he would fight this "all the way to the Supreme Court". That's like OJ saying, "I won't rest until Nicole's killers are found".Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
He already wants to go back to the first version. The yellow-headed one has himself in a dither.
The Judge wrote -----
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. … It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.
Tom's cartoon above fails for the same reason. It's a bit like sayng the Nazis were not anti-semitic because they did not target Jews in Peru.
The judge is using campaign rhetoric that does not exist in the ruling and giving it an interpretation of intent .It's like me saying that the Obamacare mandate forcing church groups to pay for abortifacients against their religious will was motivated by the emperor's religious hatred of Christians since he had made comments during his campaign about people bitterly clinging to God. Bottom line is the judge is making his ruling on what he interprets as Trump' s intent instead of the clear wording of the EO. The truth is that the countries named in the travel ban were countries the emperor targeted for special consideration. If this ruling stands ;it will be the first time a court has considered political statements during a campaign to be used to strike down a constitutional statute.
There is no religious test in the EO ,and the establishment clause has never been held by the courts to apply to refugee policy ,or to immigration policy for that matter .
You forget that Trump lawyers could not make the case for imminent threat those countries posed.
He's also forgetting Guiliani publicly stated that Trump asked him "how to make a Muslim ban legal". That wasn't campaign rhetoric.
The judge is out of line.Our system makes border security against foreign threats the responsibility of the Executive and Legislative (aka the elected branches ), not the unaccountable un-elected judiciary.The law and the constitution are unambiguous about that .
It is also beyond absurd to suggest that there is some kind of 1st amendment protections for anyone who is not a US citizen or under the jurisdiction of the United States . The fact is that even IF herr Donald had said that this travel ban was to keep radical jihadist Muslims from entering the country ,it is in his authority to do so.
Even lib lawyer Alan Dershowitz knows that the judge has no case . He correctly stated that if the emperor issued the ban there would've been no court challenge.
What foreign threats?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The invasion of the little people
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Gorsuch, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, disagrees with you. In today's testimony before the Senate committee, he said "The First Amendment applies to the undocumented".
of course he did and he's right . The operative words in my comment was "under the jurisdiction of the United States ". Once the illegal crosses the border ,whether I like it or not ,they are within the jurisdiction of the United State . A foreigner applying for visa ,green card ,or refugee status is not YET under the jurisdiction of the US.Quote:
Gorsuch, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, disagrees with you. In today's testimony before the Senate committee, he said "The First Amendment applies to the undocumented".
The only thing that bothers me is that phony politically correct phrase "undocumented immigrant " . They are here illegally .
Really Tom that's the only thing that bothers you. This man has told you he is not going to undo law around immigrationQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, A:
Speaking of Trumps unhinged demeanor, I've noticed something very strange.. BEFORE the election HE was the BULLY.. HE was top dog.. HE controlled the discussion. He VANQUISHED every Republican they put up against him. But, that was then, and this is now.
AFTER the election, we have VICTIM Trump. We have SNIVELING Trump because he wasn't treated fairly. We have PARANOID Trump who BELIEVES everybody is out to get him including the deep state (whatever that means). We have LYING Trump who calls the intelligence agencies Nazi's, and Barack Obama SICK.
Gone, is the self assured winner.. Present, is the LOSER-in-CHIEF.. That ain't good for us.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Definitely NOT good for us.
"Ignorance allied with power is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."
James Baldwin.
There was never anything wrong with immigration law. It is the enforcement that is lacking .Quote:
Really Tom that's the only thing that bothers you. This man has told you he is not going to undo law around immigration
Yup ,the Chinese chased a B-1 Bomber away in the East China Sea, off of South Korea ,and claimed it as Chinese air space. Their claims in their surrounding waters is roughly the size of Nazi Germany . The European powers allowed Hitler to expand emboldening him .He was actually suprised when he miscalculated that England and France would declare was when he invaded Poland ;so often he had gotten away with territorial grabs.Quote:
Gone, is the self assured winner.. Present, is the LOSER-in-CHIEF.. That ain't good for us.
Well ,today Scarborough Shoal could very well be Poland . We need a strong President ,and I don't believe we have one .
What! You have'nt been listening? Dump has told you how good he is, how strong he is, but he has done nothing about the South China Sea because short of war there is nothing he can doQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
of course there is plenty to be done short of war . But the President has to have huevos .Quote:
because short of war there is nothing he can do
Sadly that has been lacking for over 8 years .
For one thing ,his Sec State Tillerson supposedly spoke harshly to the Chinese in private . But his public comments were deferral . He should be speaking just as harshly in public about the Chinese regime as he did privately. He should let them know now that we will not bow to them as the emperor did.
Herr Donald conceded to China before his administration began by saying that he would support the 1 China policy . Now he is going to host Xi Jinping in Mara Largo instead of having him visit the White House . .....mistake . Every time the Chinese want leverage ,they get the NORKS to do something provocative .Then we ;conditioned like Pavlov's dog ,go running to the Chinese and ask them to intervene. The Chinese build up bargaining chips in that way that they use when dealing with issues like the South and East China Sea. Screw them . Next time the NORKS do something we should unplug the Chinese banks from the global financial system . After all ;the NORKS would not exist if there wasn't big time money laundering helping NK's illicit commerce, especially purchasing components for their nuclear weapons. BTW ,the Chinese economy will be in free fall by the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,or slightly after . They need us much more than we need them .
It is true that you have strong trade links, but so does the rest of the world. The chinese have been busy with their diplomacy of late ensuring their relationships with others are strong. What would happen if you unplugged yourself from the flow of chinese crap? You would do as much harm to yourselves. You need the chinese to keep the lid on NK, because NK don't listen to you, you are the enemyQuote:
They need us much more than we need them .
The Chinese are keeping a lid on NK? Really? Hate to see them take the lid off!
So would I, if they take the lid off Kim will march south to commit the same madness that was committed nearly 70 years ago because he thinks he has the chinese at his back, but the chinese have more to loose than he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They extract too heavy a price. The NORKS would be nothing without Chinese subsidizing a dangerously dysfunctional dynasty . I say hold the Chinese accountable for the NORKS activities .Quote:
- You need the chinese to keep the lid on NK, because NK don't listen to you, you are the enemy
They would lose badly and if the Chinese supported them ,they would pay a heavy price that they can't afford . The Chinese are working against their own self interest there . A much better option would be to unify the peninsula under South Korean rule . Trust me ,they would be a great trading partner with the Chinese . The Kim clan offers the Chinese nothing .Quote:
- So would I, if they take the lid off Kim will march south to commit the same madness that was committed nearly 70 years ago because he thinks he has the chinese at his back, but the chinese have more to loose than he does.
Unfortunately you are dealing with ideology here, fellow communists and all that, and useful to throw rhetoric at the US that the chinese can't. The chinese don't want another democratic nation on their borders, they already have to contend with Japan, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Russia giving the lie to communist utopia. Their people might learn how much better it is in the west. Many already knowQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 AM. |