This is America?

[Kaos]

A handful of thugs materialized at the first speaking engagement for the new Secretary of Education. 

They attacked her, they leaped in front of her car, they shoved her. 

I want to know which group is really the one that supports inclusiveness and diversity.  The one that shouts down anybody who disagrees with them? 

We're going to have to start doing something with these people.  You can't disrupt everything with which you disagree. 

If we did that?  Every member of Obama's administration would have been shut ins. 

Also this week:
The Rock and Steph Curry have been badgered into "backing away" from the evil pro-Trump comments made by the CEO of Underarmour.  All the guy said was: “He’s highly passionate. To have such a pro-business president is something that’s a real asset to this country,” said Plank. “I’m a big fan of people that operate in the world of publish and iterate versus you know think, think, think, think."

Wow. What a TERRIBLE thing to say! He supports the president and has high hopes for a business man being president.  Traitor! Bastard! You must distance yourself from him!!

Also this week:
Bused in protesters accost Republican speakers in numerous cities.  Many are people who either don't vote are aren't even from that district.

They really need to be shut down. 

[dallaswareagle]

[bottomfeeder]

I cannot insert an image here. But this....

[dallaswareagle]

I cannot insert an image here. But this....

Thinning the heard.

[chinook]

Thinning the heard.

are you saying herd? 

is he saying herd? 

[dallaswareagle]

are you saying herd? 

is he saying herd?

Let me help you.   Jeez   

[WiregrassTiger]

Which picture is of the lesbian?

[Kaos]

Okay, so now we have judges who are promising to review the "intent" of the president's executive orders. 

Again, that's bullshit and these judges should be impeached and probably jailed for life. 

Their job is to rule on the points of law, not delve into politicized interpretations of "intent." 

[GH2001]

Okay, so now we have judges who are promising to review the "intent" of the president's executive orders. 

Again, that's bullshit and these judges should be impeached and probably jailed for life. 

Their job is to rule on the points of law, not delve into politicized interpretations of "intent."

Judicial Activism.

[AUChizad]

Co-equal branches.

We don't have a dictator (yet).

[GH2001]

Co-equal branches.

We don't have a dictator (yet).

Agree. But their reasoning is very activist. Judges don't make law. If it is found that it's unconstitutional it needs to be by the book.

[Godfather]

Agree. But their reasoning is very activist. Judges don't make law. If it is found that it's unconstitutional it needs to be by the book.

Putting Aside whether you agree with it or not.

I don't get how it is unconstitutional? They aren't American citizens who are a part of our constitution? 

[chinook]

Co-equal branches.

We don't have a dictator (yet).

or

"You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820)

[AUChizad]

Putting Aside whether you agree with it or not.

I don't get how it is unconstitutional? They aren't American citizens who are a part of our constitution? 

It's a temporary hold to determine the constitutionality. That's how these things work.

A New York Federal judge ruled that Iraqi plaintiffs suing the Federal government had a "strong likelihood of success" in establishing that their removal "violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

A Massachusetts Federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in a ruling on behalf of two permanent resident college professors because she found that "the government could not "detain or remove" individuals who had arrived legally from the countries subject to Trump's order: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/

Also a Washington Federal Judge (a George W Bush appointee) ruled that "the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses."

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/seattle-federal-judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-on-immigration-ban-on-nationwide-basis.html

[GH2001]

Putting Aside whether you agree with it or not.

I don't get how it is unconstitutional? They aren't American citizens who are a part of our constitution? 

Agree. Not saying it is or isn't. But to go after the intent? Not the correct way. If it is deemed unconstitutional I'd rather it be the right way. Judicial activism is not that way.

[GH2001]

It's a temporary hold to determine the constitutionality. That's how these things work.

A New York Federal judge ruled that Iraqi plaintiffs suing the Federal government had a "strong likelihood of success" in establishing that their removal "violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

A Massachusetts Federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in a ruling on behalf of two permanent resident college professors because she found that "the government could not "detain or remove" individuals who had arrived legally from the countries subject to Trump's order: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/

Also a Washington Federal Judge (a George W Bush appointee) ruled that "the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses."

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/seattle-federal-judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-on-immigration-ban-on-nationwide-basis.html

I think a lot of the rub comes from the 9th's questions as far as intent and what appeared to be just making shit up as they went along as it suited them. Especially Freidland. They are trying to get into someone's head and decide their reasoning. That's dangerous.

[Godfather]

It's a temporary hold to determine the constitutionality. That's how these things work.

A New York Federal judge ruled that Iraqi plaintiffs suing the Federal government had a "strong likelihood of success" in establishing that their removal "violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

A Massachusetts Federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in a ruling on behalf of two permanent resident college professors because she found that "the government could not "detain or remove" individuals who had arrived legally from the countries subject to Trump's order: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/

Also a Washington Federal Judge (a George W Bush appointee) ruled that "the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses."

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/seattle-federal-judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-on-immigration-ban-on-nationwide-basis.html

I understand what the judges are saying and doing, I still don't agree with them. 

All that is great but read the 14th amendment.  It starts with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

I realize that Naturalized can be a foreigner.  However, I am talking about someone who has never been in this country, not people who live here legally or illegally. 

edit: I agree that if they already live here, especially legally, that they should not be banned.  But that isn't the issue.

[Kaos]

Co-equal branches.

We don't have a dictator (yet).

Not the responsibility of the judicial branch to delve into "intent".  Their only duty is to assess the constitutionality.  Period. 

Has nothing to do with dictators.  But he'd at least be a good one, unlike the departed emperor.

[GH2001]

Not the responsibility of the judicial branch to delve into "intent".  Their only duty is to assess the constitutionality.  Period. 

Has nothing to do with dictators.  But he'd at least be a good one, unlike the departed emperor.

This^. That's my big complaint here.

Scalia was once said to have a sign on his desk that read "stupid but constitutional"

[AUChizad]

I understand what the judges are saying and doing, I still don't agree with them. 

All that is great but read the 14th amendment.  It starts with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

I realize that Naturalized can be a foreigner.  However, I am talking about someone who has never been in this country, not people who live here legally or illegally. 

edit: I agree that if they already live here, especially legally, that they should not be banned.  But that isn't the issue.

Each of the three was addressing the rights of people living here legally, each in different ways.

Remember, they're not even saying it is definitely constitutionally illegal, but that it might be.

The New York class action case on behalf of the two Iraqis who were here in the US legally working with the military:

According to court papers, both Darweesh and Alshawi were legally allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump's order.
Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the US during the Iraq War, was released from detention early Saturday afternoon.

The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for her association with the US military.
The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal.

As already mentioned, the Massachusetts case was pertaining to two permanent resident college professors because she found that "the government could not "detain or remove" individuals who had arrived legally from the countries subject to Trump's order."

And the Washington judge ruled that the ban negatively impacted people and businesses legally residing in the state of Washington.