Trump is limited... Good news.

The 9th? Its a simple cure.....simply execute another EO in detail that cannot be subjected to left wing rhetorical bull shit. Draft the EO in such a manner that it details the rule of law detailing the fact that Immigration falls under executive authority....detail the number of murders around the globe committed by ISLAM, and point the fact that all acts of Islamic terrorism that is detailed in the EO are all 100% MUSLIM in nature. Game over. In the meanwhile concentrate on appointing another constitutional advocate to SCOTUS.

This latest act of left wing luancy was not unexpected by anyone that has witnessed the 9th in action before. The dog and phony was unnecessary...the ruling was predetermined, it was just a necessary step.

He wont do that because its not about keeping America safe, its about fighting for power.
 
How many attacks resulted from Iraqis here?

You silly hypocrites whine about Trump while saying NOTHING about Obama's ban, well, except you all said that, that is different.

I'm so sick of political hypocrites. Our country is going down the tubes because of people and politicians like you.

And right now hypocrite Trumpkins are giving their messiah a free pass even though they whined incessantly about the very same thing when Obama did it.

When do you plan on calling out those hypocrites?
 
He wont do that because its not about keeping America safe, its about fighting for power.

He won't....is that what your crystal ball tells you? LMAO:) Fact: this left wing ruling was not about the constitutionality of the order, it was simply a stay of implementing action. Another order in detail drafted in such a manner as to prove the urgent need to enhance immigration screening as demonstrated via the attacks in Europe that were generated by supposed Muslim refugees...is all that is required. The first EO can be stayed until hell freezes over, there is nothing in the ruling that stops the President from exercising his executive duty to defend the citizens of this nation.
 
Last edited:
This thread was about Trump accepting the rule of law, not if he wins or loses on any particular issue.

Thats not how I read the evolution of the thread, but no matter....it comes as no surprise that Trump would and has to accept the ruling...
he already showed that by adhering to the WA. state judge, before it was taken up by Dist. 9.....

So you think the USSC is a biased court.....thats an interesting accusation....implying the Dist. 9 is less biased....?

Overturned in over 80% of their decisions....and you, by implication, opine they are not extreme...an 80%, what could be viewed as a failure rate, says to me, that something is radically wrong with someones logic and knowledge of the Constitution....course, I'm no lawyer....and don't quite know what 'Ivy League' bias means in laymen terms....

I don't know how far back in time these stats go, but I would assume it covers a variety of judges in both courts.....to me, they fucked up in 80% of their rulings and I assume the Supreme Court is far superior in brain power than Dist. courts.....thats just my opinion....

It made quite an impression on me learning that Obama was shot down 13 or 14 times in the Supreme Court by unanimous decisions....
guess it was that 'bias' again, huh......I don't think so.

Thanks.
 
Thats not how I read the evolution of the thread, but no matter....it comes as no surprise that Trump would and has to accept the ruling...
he already showed that by adhering to the WA. state judge, before it was taken up by Dist. 9.....

So you think the USSC is a biased court.....thats an interesting accusation....implying the Dist. 9 is less biased....?

Overturned in over 80% of their decisions....and you, by implication, opine they are not extreme...an 80%, what could be viewed as a failure rate, says to me, that something is radically wrong with someones logic and knowledge of the Constitution....course, I'm no lawyer....and don't quite know what 'Ivy League' bias means in laymen terms....

I don't know how far back in time these stats go, but I would assume it covers a variety of judges in both courts.....to me, they fucked up in 80% of their rulings and I assume the Supreme Court is far superior in brain power than Dist. courts.....thats just my opinion....

It made quite an impression on me learning that Obama was shot down 13 or 14 times in the Supreme Court by unanimous decisions....
guess it was that 'bias' again, huh......I don't think so.

Thanks.

Sorry, but as usual, you are wrong.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

FALSE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/
 
Sorry, but as usual, you are wrong.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

FALSE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

Next time read your own link dim bulb.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.

Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.
 
In a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration.

The one-sentence ruling, issued without comment or dissent, means that the programs will remain blocked from going into effect, and the issue will return to the lower court. It is exceedingly unlikely the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/

Oooops
 
Sorry, but as usual, you are wrong.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

FALSE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

I claimed nothing about 'constitutional authority' being the reason he was overruled by the Supreme Court....

He was shot down, (for various reasons) about 44 times by the SC and I said 13 or 14 times by unanimous votes of the court....

FACT....

Learn to read.
 
I claimed nothing about 'constitutional authority' being the reason he was overruled by the Supreme Court....

He was shot down, (for various reasons) about 44 times by the SC and I said 13 or 14 times by unanimous votes of the court....

FACT....

Learn to read.

Poor Zappa.
 
I prefer liberty to safety. But then again, I am not afraid of the bogyman.

How many of the refugees that you support coming here are you personally taking in? Unless the answer is more than none, what are you afraid of?
 
I claimed nothing about 'constitutional authority' being the reason he was overruled by the Supreme Court....

He was shot down, (for various reasons) about 44 times by the SC and I said 13 or 14 times by unanimous votes of the court....

FACT....

Learn to read.

You claimed the SCOTUS had unanimously overturned Obama 13-14 times.

I provided the link which showed you how you were wrong.

Guess it's you who needs to learn to read...ROFL!
 
Next time read your own link dim bulb.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.

Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

Oh WOW...so the SPOKESWOMAN for Rep Goodlatte agrees with him...what a total SHOCKER!

From the link:

"Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach."

Maybe someday, just once you will read the link before erupting with more ignorance.
 
Back
Top