- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Did Anyone Besides Me Drop Their Jaw When Judge Michelle Friedland Asked If
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:07 am
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:07 am
there was evidence that the seven countries (or their residents) engaged in terrorist activities???
WTH? Is she that insulated from real world events?
WTH? Is she that insulated from real world events?
This post was edited on 2/8/17 at 8:11 am
10
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:09 am to OTIS2
She's a lib, therefore a Muslim apologist.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:09 am to OTIS2
She probably said it aloud so that it would be on record
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:12 am to Crimson Mafia IIIX
My first thought, but the argument is in the brief,and thus the record, you can bet that. The question is disturbing.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:19 am to OTIS2
The DOJ lawyer did not mention it in the Washington case or the 9th circuit one.
Why is that?
If they thought it was important or relevant, why was that information not presented?
Why is that?
If they thought it was important or relevant, why was that information not presented?
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:20 am to OTIS2
quote:
there was evidence that the seven countries (or their residents) engaged in terrorist activities???
WTH? Is she that insulated from real world events?
So give me a specific example where there was terrorist activities from those countries and then give an example where an equivalent of those terrorist activities were conducted by a country not banned.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:22 am to OTIS2
Must be an ignorant judge to have never heard of the concept of Judicial Notice.
quote:
Judicial Notice
A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:28 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The DOJ lawyer did not mention it in the Washin
Wrong. Listen to the transcript if necessary.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:31 am to OTIS2
There's not much a lib would do or say that would make me drop my jaw but this is stupid as hell.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:31 am to OTIS2
quote:
Listen to the transcript if necessary.
Edit: Petty thing to find humorous on my part.
This post was edited on 2/8/17 at 8:32 am
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:40 am to buckeye_vol
It's a recording...
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:42 am to OTIS2
The oral arguments cannot use written information that was not submitted
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:46 am to mahdragonz
quote:Did this question make more sense in your head?
So give me a specific example where there was terrorist activities from those countries and then give an example where an equivalent of those terrorist activities were conducted by a country not banned.
You're about as bright as a 10 lumen bulb.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:46 am to OTIS2
Their*
Posted on 2/8/17 at 7:53 am to OTIS2
quote:This would have been my answer.
Friedland Asked if there was evidence that the seven countries (or their residents) engaged in terrorist activities???
"Hmmm, let me think. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia.
No your honor, there has never been a documented case of terrorism or terrorist from these countries.
Are you fricking retarded your honor?"
Posted on 2/8/17 at 8:17 am to mahdragonz
The judiciary cannot make decisions of national security. They cannot make decisions on whether one threat is greater than another, one country more dangerous than another, one class of aliens more dangerous than another.
The executive branch has full authority to make determinations of risk via immigration.
The fact that they even asked questions about evidence shows what political hacks they are.
This is strictly a separation of powers case.
The executive branch has full authority to make determinations of risk via immigration.
The fact that they even asked questions about evidence shows what political hacks they are.
This is strictly a separation of powers case.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 8:19 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The DOJ lawyer did not mention it in the Washington case or the 9th circuit one.
Why is that?
If they thought it was important or relevant, why was that information not presented?
to give a perfectly reasonable response, it's very likely because this whole situation was done procedurally in a way to frick the DOJ and give no time to really prepare. that's why a single district court granting what amounted to a nationwide injuncton with major standing issues is somewhat insane
Posted on 2/8/17 at 8:20 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
The executive branch has full authority to make determinations of risk via immigration.
but
1. it has to do so within statutory authority granted to the executive
2. it cannot violate constitutional requirements
those are the 2 real issues in this case
Posted on 2/8/17 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Yes, that is true, but asking about specific terrorist threats has nothing to do with either of those.
Asking about the Muslim/religion issue is legit, but the judges are not qualified to make threat assessments.
Asking about the Muslim/religion issue is legit, but the judges are not qualified to make threat assessments.
Posted on 2/8/17 at 8:27 am to OTIS2
quote:And not a transcript, which is a written account. It was just a stupid thing for me to point out.
It's a recording
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News