Unanimous! Trump Loses

As it shoud be. The bigots lose again. Get used to it.

 

Did you expect a different conclusion from the liberal 9th Circuit? If so, you're an idiot.

Regardless, this will have to be hashed out in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this will take a long time to be concluded. In the meantime, immigrants who wish to do harm to the country will, inadvertently, be allowed to enter.

A president's Constitutional authority regarding immigration is being challenged, so this certainly won't stand.

 

Trump overstepped his authority plain and simple. He doesn't get to operate by fiat. He is only one third of the government. He believes that he has the authority to whatever he wants. He doesn't. He has to work within the constitution whether he likes it or not. Your stupid assertion that the president has the constitutional authority regarding immigration is as vague as it is untrue and provably false.

 

FWIW, 86% of the 9th circuit's decisions appealed to the Supreme Court have been overturned. It almost sound like their ruling against President Trump means he is going to win.

 

This certainly vindicates Salley Yates.

 

I pray they appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court.

 

Nothing happened to ameliorate her refusal to do her job. NOTHING!

 

Oh? How so?

 

Sally Who? Oh, you mean the former Acting-AG who refused to do her job and was rightfully fired? Sorry, but she hasn't been vindicated nor will she ever be.

 

I just spit coffee on my phone laughing!!!!

You can't make this shit up lololol

 

Oh . . . okay . . . maybe Joe can.

 

Trump's lawyers claimed that his authority was unreviewable. The court found that there was absolutely no precedent for any such claim. They further found that it was well within the courts authority to review any executive order for constitutionality.

 

Read the court's ruling. You'll find that Trump was schooled in how to implement policy in a less amateurish way.

 

Repubicans simply want to fall in line behind a king. The rest of us don't.

 

Obviously you either have not read it of do not understand what you read. It has nothing to do with how President Trump should or should not implement any policy. It only has to do with whether or not Judge Robart's injunction should or should not be left in.

 

Yeah, that was the wrong argument to make . . . if they had simply argued that President Trump acted in defense of the nation, they would have won.

We lost this battle , but will win the war . . . ISIS will not prevail.

BTW Joe, how would you feel if one of your kids, grandkids or neighbor's kids was maimed or even killed by nails, woodscrews and ball bearings, thanks to some ISIS trained and funded juvenile refugee? It's certainly not comforting, this new news that ISIS is recruiting children to export their terror in our direction with unsuspected youngsters.

 

. . . more to the above, this morning, French authorities arrested 4 would-be terrorists, one of which was a 16 year old. The terrorist children are on the march . . . how will we stop them Joe? Huh?

 

No, not really. The way this executive order was written and implemented was so amateurish, it would have failed in court under several different legal challenges. You do know that it was never vetted by the DOJ right?

I see you have bought into the fear. Keep in mind that none of these countries that are named in this ban have ever sent ISIS fighters to the U.S. But be afraid anyway.

This is nothing more than a poor attempt at a logical fallacy. Specifically...

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

 

We won't be France.