- 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
re: Has govt ever defied a president like this?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:45 am to Iosh
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:45 am to Iosh
A download?
frick you Iosh. You're a fricking douchebag.
This quote discribes you perfectly.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
You're fricking lost in the wilderness.
frick you Iosh. You're a fricking douchebag.
This quote discribes you perfectly.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
You're fricking lost in the wilderness.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 12:46 am
0
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:49 am to mahdragonz
The judge was appointed by Bush
And he is a known LIBERAL
You disinformation lunatic
And he is a known LIBERAL
You disinformation lunatic
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:52 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Do you think the constitution is wrong?
This is not a constitutional argument. It's a procedure, due process, preservation of status quo argument. No foreign national is being denied due process by having their visa held until a hearing can be conducted in 2 weeks. There is no irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 12:59 am to KaiserSoze99
Did you read the ruling?
It states the executive order negatively impacts the economic status on the states.
This is a classic case of federal over reach.
And I forgot who posted saying this federal judge was appointed by Bush but is a liberal...where are the conservative voices saying it was a bad appointment?
It states the executive order negatively impacts the economic status on the states.
This is a classic case of federal over reach.
And I forgot who posted saying this federal judge was appointed by Bush but is a liberal...where are the conservative voices saying it was a bad appointment?
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 1:00 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:05 am to matthew25
quote:
All 5 judges have ruled against him so far. He will have to appeal to get a favorable ruling. Where is Jeff Sessions?
Not all 5: NY Post I like the Boston judge much better than the Seattle one. Boston judge asks plaintiff attorney, "show me where it says Muslims".
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:12 am to mahdragonz
I read the injunction.
The Court's "findings" were NOTHING. The Court stated NO FACTS to support its injunction. All the Court did was state that the burden was met.
That is the biggest pile of shite I have ever seen from a United States District Court. Jesus Cow Herding Christ!!!
There are NO FACTUAL DETAILS as to why the Plaintiffs proved CLEARLY that:
1) that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law;
2) that the balance of harm favors the movant;
3) that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and
4) that the public interest favors the granting of the injunction.
THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS! It is entirely the opposite.
This injunction is PURELY political and SHOULD be immediately reversed. Goddammit, I am getting so fricking tired of the blatant usurpation of power and lack of respect for law or office.
We need a fricking WAR.
The Court's "findings" were NOTHING. The Court stated NO FACTS to support its injunction. All the Court did was state that the burden was met.
That is the biggest pile of shite I have ever seen from a United States District Court. Jesus Cow Herding Christ!!!
There are NO FACTUAL DETAILS as to why the Plaintiffs proved CLEARLY that:
1) that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law;
2) that the balance of harm favors the movant;
3) that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and
4) that the public interest favors the granting of the injunction.
THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS! It is entirely the opposite.
This injunction is PURELY political and SHOULD be immediately reversed. Goddammit, I am getting so fricking tired of the blatant usurpation of power and lack of respect for law or office.
We need a fricking WAR.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:17 am to mahdragonz
quote:
It states the executive order negatively impacts the economic status on the states.
By definition, the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. They can seek money damages from the federal government-=an adequate remedy.
This CANNOT be a matter of mere incompetence. This is pure judicial misconduct and it BETTER be IMMEDIATELY overturned.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:21 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The judge was appointed by Bush and is a known conservative
Yeah, and so was John Roberts who supposedly "re-wrote" the ACA to make it a tax and allegedly constitutional. However, we were told the whole time it was "laughingly" debated with a majority Democrat Congress, and passed using closure rules, that it was NOT a tax!
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:30 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
Yeah, and so was John Roberts who supposedly "re-wrote" the ACA to make it a tax and allegedly constitutional. However, we were told the whole time it was "laughingly" debated with a majority Democrat Congress, and passed using closure rules, that it was NOT a tax!
If I were sitting on that case, and I heard evidence that the legislative body explicitly denied that it was a tax, I would have rejected the tax argument; however, I cannot fully fault Roberts for his decision. They don't have to call it a tax in the act. They can deny that it's a tax to the public, but if it has the effect of a tax (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck), Congress has the power to levy such a tax. If anything, I can respect Roberts for making that decision, because it was probably the correct decision, as much as I hate to say it. He didn't decide the politically prudent outcome, then formulate his reasoning to support that outcome.
I would have taken them at their word and held that it was NOT a tax, as they stated.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 1:43 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The judge was appointed by Bush and is a known conservative.
John Roberts says hello
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:03 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
I read the injunction.
The Court's "findings" were NOTHING. The Court stated NO FACTS to support its injunction. All the Court did was state that the burden was met.
That is the biggest pile of shite I have ever seen from a United States District Court. Jesus Cow Herding Christ!!!
There are NO FACTUAL DETAILS as to why the Plaintiffs proved CLEARLY that:
1) that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law;
2) that the balance of harm favors the movant;
3) that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and
4) that the public interest favors the granting of the injunction.
THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS! It is entirely the opposite.
This injunction is PURELY political and SHOULD be immediately reversed. Goddammit, I am getting so fricking tired of the blatant usurpation of power and lack of respect for law or office.
We need a fricking WAR.
Now this is a MELT to be proud of!
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:09 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The judge was appointed by Bush and is a known conservative.
George W. Bush was and is a globalist shill.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 2:11 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
We need a fricking WAR.
Start one pussy
Posted on 2/4/17 at 3:30 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
letting in potential terrorists without vetting
quote:
the FLOODGATE of sheep fricking terrorists that are allowed to come in without proper vetting
I think you are a retard. You still need a VISA to come into the US. It's not easy to obtain one. Vetting has never stopped.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 4:57 am to deltaland
Would any of you levied these ridiculous allegations against these ordinary travelers at this time if your king trump hadn't issued his arbitrary decree? Of course not. Anyone upset now is a mental pawn, so weak of mind that you are angry about nothing for no reason other than having been told to be angry by your dear leader.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:14 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Here is the document
Pure babble -
SO - they say they are "protecting the residents of this country
-- because of the irreparable harm
---- to the universities and institutions of higher learning.
---- and to the states tax base" - etc ad nauseam
Please explain that bullshite to the untrained ear.
What the heck is 'irreparable' about a temporary delay while vetting is being performed - when it only takes from a few hours or a day or so to vet someone who really belongs here. And if they don't belong here, then their asses should NEVER be allowed to come in.
Where is the irreparable harm?
and please don't snicker when you try to describe the harm to the universities and the tax base.
This is pure bullshite of the chili-shite variety.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 6:20 am to mahdragonz
quote:
The judge was appointed by Bush and is a known conservative.
You are a liar.
"Known conservatives" do not support BLM.
You probably ought not spout bullshite that obviously has been disproven earlier on this board
Posted on 2/4/17 at 6:30 am to deltaland
JFK was killed for defying the government. The pubs when Obama was in office fought him at every turn even when It came to helping America. They'd rather watch the country fail than see Obama succeed. The tea party garbage was just like BLM and was the original SJW movement. The guy that just left had to deal with way more shite. 100% of what Trump is dealing with is his creation. You Trumpkins are such snowflakes.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 6:39 am
Posted on 2/4/17 at 6:44 am to KaiserSoze99
Agree. Declare war now and I'll be in Cali killing libs by noon.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 6:59 am to deltaland
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/5/20 at 7:47 am
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News