Court stops Trumps ban temporarily again.

What's next?

Firing all Federal Judges to make way for new ones who want to make America great again

Stupid to make a ruling based on campaign statements, which again the judge referenced. It'll get overturned eventually but in the meantime the activist judges get to do their part to "stop Trump" and have their 15 minutes. fuck the rule of law.

LooseGoose wrote:Stupid to make a ruling based on campaign statements, which again the judge referenced. It'll get overturned eventually but in the meantime the activist judges get to do their part to "stop Trump" and have their 15 minutes. fuck the rule of law.

This one will get overturned? Or the first one?

Core American values win again. Where is this extreme vetting we've been promised? Too busy yelling at Snoop Dogg? No time to actually do his job?

LooseGoose wrote:Stupid to make a ruling based on campaign statements, which again the judge referenced. It'll get overturned eventually but in the meantime the activist judges get to do their part to "stop Trump" and have their 15 minutes. fuck the rule of law.

I'm sorry you hate the Constitution.

Comrade Goosechev doing his part to keep Muslims out of Oscoda County

LooseGoose wrote:Stupid to make a ruling based on campaign statements, which again the judge referenced.   It'll get overturned eventually but in the meantime the activist judges get to do their part to "stop Trump" and have their 15 minutes.   fuck the rule of law.

Care to quote from the ruling, or at least share a link? Because I suspect the ruling was based on quite a lot more than just campaign statements, even if they were referenced. Just because a judge makes a ruling you personally disagree with doesn't necessarily make that judge an activist judge.

Remember Comrade Goosechev is the same poster who was defending the GOP's idea to let the SCOTUS number drop to 8-7 or fewer members if Hillary Clinton had been elected.

Comrade Goosechev's rants about activist judges would be MIA if some Federal judge overturned Roe v Wade tomorrow..

I love it when over and over I'm the only partisan here. You people are blind.

LooseGoose wrote:I love it when over and over I'm the only partisan here.   You people are blind.

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve either one.

Comrade Goosechev thinks someone's going to steal his leader dog.

LooseGoose wrote:I love it when over and over I'm the only partisan here. You people are blind.

now you know what the rath of the The Dowager Lady Margret, Countess and Prefict of Northumbria feels like. you made your bed bro....

LooseGoose wrote:I love it when over and over I'm the only partisan here. You people are blind.

You called Trump an "asshole", and then seemed to change your tune when they slapped that (R) next to his name on the ballot.

That right wing zealot    Alan Dershowitz seems to agree with Trump that the Hawaii judge is putting politics over the law.
Dershowitz: Supreme Court Will Find Trump Travel Order Constitutional, Even Without Gorsuch

Interestingly, Dershowitz disagrees with the need for the ban, but says Trump does have the right to enact it.
Even "assholes" can know what they're talking about, right, Nigel?

And I believe if you polled honest legal scholars, they would agree that Roe v Wade was a bad legal decision. They'd also probably agree that it's very unlikely to ever be overturned.

I.B. Fine wrote:That right wing zealot    Alan Dershowitz seems to agree with Trump that the Hawaii judge is putting politics over the law.
Dershowitz: Supreme Court Will Find Trump Travel Order Constitutional, Even Without Gorsuch

Interestingly, Dershowitz disagrees with the need for the ban, but says Trump does have the right to enact it.
Even "assholes" can know what they're talking about, right, Nigel?

And I believe if you polled honest legal scholars, they would agree that Roe v Wade was a bad legal decision. They'd also probably agree that it's very unlikely to ever be overturned.

You're kind of bouncing all over the place.

Check with the guy who called Trump an "asshole".

DWags wrote:IB, I think about 8 posts up, I agree with Dershowitz. You can't use what a candidate has stupidly said to get his knuckle dragging base fired up to vote for them. You have to base the ban on law not on words of a racist predator like Trump. We all know why he used "Radical Muslim" over and over it cowtow's to our lowest form of citizen in our country. We know his ban is based on a shallow form of racism but it doesn't matter, you can't base your decisions on words spoken, which both seem to have used in this case.

I noticed that, but I also noticed a lot of 'ends justify the means' back slapping over this restraining order.

DWags wrote:IB, I think about 8 posts up, I agree with Dershowitz. You can't use what a candidate has stupidly said to get his knuckle dragging base fired up to vote for them. You have to base the ban on law not on words of a racist predator like Trump. We all know why he used "Radical Muslim" over and over it cowtow's to our lowest form of citizen in our country. We know his ban is based on a shallow form of racism but it doesn't matter, you can't base your decisions on words spoken, which both seem to have used in this case.

Many people said the first order would hold up if/when it went to the Supreme Court. But, the 2nd order seemed to (somewhat) indicate there were problems with the 1st order (that might face issues in court).