 |
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 PM. |