- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Appeals Court Rejects Request to Immediately Restore Travel Ban
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
We may need to nuclear option Gorsuch in so we can finally settle this.
How much would the libs melt over that!?!? Using the nuclear option to get a judge in quick enough to make sure we can ban Muslims!!!!!
How much would the libs melt over that!?!? Using the nuclear option to get a judge in quick enough to make sure we can ban Muslims!!!!!
1
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
After having read that, I think he was trying to state "It's universally accepted by the legal community that the US cannot limit or ban immigration in any way they see fit (i.e. The constitution still acts as a check on immigration limitations)." The wording of that sentence makes it seem he was saying we can't have a limitation on immigration (which is not true).
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Actually what it is though is a carte blanche ticket for Trump to aggressively nominate übercons to the judiciary. It's a very poor judicial gambit. Also provides rationale and license to go nuclear with SCOTUS appts. I guess these judicial activists cannot help themselves, but they are poking a hornets nest.
THIS is what I am hoping for - begin flooding the course at all levels with nothing but staunch textualist originalist justices who rely on what the constitution actually SAYs rather than what some wild eyed demigod wishes it says.
Then start going after all the past court decisions based on feel-goodish. Roe-v-Wade being the most glaring example. Thousands of other bullshite decisions need to be wiped out.
FORCE the left wing radicals to go thru the CONGRESS to pass LAWS that they want - and force them to be especially careful to delineate all the specific things they want to enact.
Go nuclear on their asses - because if ever the DEMs regain POTUS/CONGRESS that is exactly what they will do. DEMs have been trying to destroy the congeniality and comity of congress - especially the Senate - for 50 years now. These latest examples of their craziness is proof of their intent.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:17 am to TrueTiger
quote:Finally!!! Something we can agree with the left on.
if the leftists are sincere that the government cannot do this job, then there is really no reason to have government
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:17 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:If it is driven that way, Dems are incredibly short-sighted.
We may need to nuclear option Gorsuch in so we can finally settle this.
How much would the libs melt over that!?!?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Dems are incredibly short-sighted.
Not really.
The Dems today know they can change the narrative when they choose due to the MSM being in their back pocket.
Doesn't matter if they did all this, they will gleefully lie and the MSM will run with it, while tens of millions of Hugos, Awants, BamaATls gladly tell their fellow Americans they are morons.....while other members of their ilk start violently attacking whoever they feel like.
They are truly evil geniuses.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:24 am to Revelator
quote:
What logical person would say that a country has no right to limit or ban immigration for any reason?
Logic of this kind doesn't matter. We are awash in ignorance. The number of Americans who have replaced actual American history with their fantastical version of how they want things to be have never been higher. Their America existed only in their heads. It's the one that has no say over who does and doesn't enter it's borders. It's the one in which the very notion of borders becomes unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:25 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
After having read that, I think he was trying to state "It's universally accepted by the legal community that the US cannot limit or ban immigration in any way they see fit (i.e. The constitution still acts as a check on immigration limitations)." The wording of that sentence makes it seem he was saying we can't have a limitation on immigration (which is not true).
Yep. I used "any" because I was responding with the same phrasing as the person I was quoting. That's also why I put asterisks around the world. I'll edit the post since it seems to be causing confusion.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:25 am to Tigereye10005
No tweets yet this morning? Looking forward to reading what Trump tweets about this court.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:26 am to a want
quote:
Conway, tried to float the "massacre" story to her base but was caught
I know you don't believe that - she obviously misspoke and I am disappointed she didn't recognize it as soon as it escaped her lips. It is conceivable that the relied on some sketchy briefing material.
But to suggest that she intentionally floated such an obvious untruth is really unsupportable. She is smarter than that. It is the same as if people really thought Obama didn't know there were 57 states. We can make fun of that gaff because he should have immediately corrected himself but nobody thinks he
was just ignorant of the facts or trying to 'misinform' someone.
But you know all this - you should try to uphold your reputation as a serious commentator from the left. You are one of the few who appear here worth reading. Don't squander that.
eta - I will join you in making fun of her for the gaff.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 8:30 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:28 am to Tigereye10005
Will be interesting if the 9th Circus goes directly against their 2012 precedent with Arizona
There is a reason the 9th Circus is the most overturned appellate court
There is a reason the 9th Circus is the most overturned appellate court
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:28 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
Foreign countries don't have US laws...
This is US law;
quote:
Regarding the scope of this power, as the Supreme Court held in its 1982 case United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, “The power to regulate immigration—an attribute of sovereignty essential to the preservation of any nation—has been entrusted by the Constitution to the political branches of the Federal Government.” The Court then quoted a 1976 case, which acknowledged, “The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens.”
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:32 am to a want
quote:
court ruling “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment.”
This is how we don't stop the zombie apocalypse. Judges who think they know more than those hired to protect us.
What intel does the judge have that we and those in charge don't?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:34 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
Today in history: 1917 Congress passed the Immigration Act, which restricted Asian immigration, over President Wilson's veto.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:34 am to a want
quote:That is obvious.
I don't think
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:35 am to Revelator
quote:
“The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens.”
An executive order is not an act of Congress. So it's not relevant to the situation we are in now.
If, theoretically, Congress passes a law that is the same or similar to this one and it is challenged, this case law would be relevant.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:38 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
If, theoretically, Congress passes a law that is the same or similar to this one and it is challenged, this case law would be relevant.
The laws already exist and I just cited it.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:38 am to Tigereye10005
More like biased, politicized, activist filth taking their marching orders from the DNC and ACLU.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:43 am to Revelator
The law from the case you cited is referring to congressional power, not executive orders from the President.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:44 am to a want
quote:
The ruling meant that refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were barred by an executive order signed by the president on Jan. 27 would, for now, continue to be able to enter the country.
Does this actually extend admission beyond those who already hold visas? How can refugees just enter the country because of this order, but it was an option for them to enter when Obama was president? I suspect this is a poorly written article.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News