Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Executive order and Business ties

Give me a break - I read it multiple times - if it wasn't obvious, I will spell it out for you - they didn't mention the Muslim religion and equating the order with a "Muslim ban".

Nice backtrack, fuckface.

And he doesn't have to mention the Muslim religion anyway. Muslims are the majority in each country listed. All citizens are banned, except those in the minority religion. Muslims = banned, Christians = exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Here's what happened:
The State of Washington (among others) has sued Trump & the federal
government on the basis of his immigration order being unconstitutional (it is) and asked for injunctive relief (ie a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of Trump's order) because it is affecting people currently and on an ongoing basis, in addition to a full declaration that the order is illegal & unconstitutional.

the judge, after a hearing in which both sides argued, found for the plaintiffs (in this case the states of WA & MN) and enjoined portions of the order. ie the government can't enforce some key parts of Trumps order. The TRO is put in place to stop continuing harm while the full case is adjudicated.

this is all well within the authority of the district court judge. judges issue TROs ALL THE TIME. judged obviously issue TROs before the whole case is adjudicated because that's the whole fucking point of getting a TRO.

sure they do, but they're supposed to be based in law. According to the judge's opnion, that's not the case here because he made no legal argument. The injuction was granted based on the judge's belief that the plaintiff's would likely ultimately prevail.

And the order is neither racist or unconstitutional. That much is clear. An activist judge or a panel of activist judges may say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.
 
sure they do, but they're supposed to be based in law. According to the judge's opnion, that's not the case here because he made no legal argument. The injuction was granted based on the judge's belief that the plaintiff's would likely ultimately prevail.

And the order is neither racist or unconstitutional. That much is clear. An activist judge or a panel of activist judges may say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

The judge overheard both sides present their arguments for and against the temporary injunction, and ruled based on the arguments presented.

nothing was done here that was outside the realm of normal legal procedure. the judge didn't overstep anything.
 
there's a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit having a hearing on the temporary injunction right now. we should know very soon whether Trump's order is going to continue to be blocked pending the full resolution of Washington's lawsuit, or whether they'll overrule the district court.
 
And the order is neither racist or unconstitutional. That much is clear. An activist judge or a panel of activist judges may say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.


And yet, it's not because YOU say so. Don't those federal judges know they're supposed to consult with you to get the real facts first? jeesh, those guys should be disbarred.
 
Weather you like the law or not or what side you're on The Potus has the right to do what he did at his discretion. That's fact. No one can argue that fact..
 
there's a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit having a hearing on the temporary injunction right now. we should know very soon whether Trump's order is going to continue to be blocked pending the full resolution of Washington's lawsuit, or whether they'll overrule the district court.

Again, the judge made no legal argument or justification for the TRO. In his opinion, he states that the TRO is based on his belief that the plaintiffs will prevail at trial. The closest he came to making a legal case was in oral arguments where he went off the rails and made the factually inaccurate point that Trump’s order wasn’t legal unless it was “based in fact, as opposed to fiction,” explaining that no terrorist attacks were perpetrated by people from the seven named countries.

Again, "it is not necessary for the executive branch to demonstrate that a policy it adopts prevents a harm that has already occurred. The executive branch has broad latitude in refugee and immigration policy for purposes of national security. The Department of Justice has rightly argued that judges do not have access to classified risk information as the president does; furthermore, foreign citizens abroad do not have Constitutional rights."

If a judge has no legal basis for issuing a TRO, it seems he is overstepping in issuing a TRO.
 
Last edited:
And yet, it's not because YOU say so. Don't those federal judges know they're supposed to consult with you to get the real facts first? jeesh, those guys should be disbarred.

No. It's not racist or unconstitutional because it's not racist and it doesn't violate the constitution. This isn't my opinion, these are facts. This is perhaps your weakest trolling effort yet. Despite all the practice, it seems you're actually getting worse - and you weren't very good to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Weather you like the law or not or what side you're on The Potus has the right to do what he did at his discretion. That's fact. No one can argue that fact..


I'm not sure you quite understand how our system of government is supposed to work.

We have a President, not a King, Emperor, or Dictator.

Checks and balances, google that.
 
No. It's not racist or unconstitutional because it's not racist and it doesn't violate the constitution. This isn't my opinion, these are facts. This is perhaps your weakest trolling effort yet. Despite all the practice, it seems you're actually getting worse - and you weren't very good to begin with.



A fact is non-debatable. This is being wildly debated on a national and even global scale, by 2 federal judges, one even a republican.

So just you saying it's a fact does not make it so, in fact, it's just your opinion.
 
Again, the judge made no legal argument or justification for the TRO. In his opinion, he states that the TRO is based on his belief that the plaintiffs will prevail at trial. The closest he came to making a legal case was in oral arguments where he went off the rails and made the factually inaccurate point that Trump?s order wasn?t legal unless it was ?based in fact, as opposed to fiction,? explaining that no terrorist attacks were perpetrated by people from the seven named countries.

Again, "it is not necessary for the executive branch to demonstrate that a policy it adopts prevents a harm that has already occurred. The executive branch has broad latitude in refugee and immigration policy for purposes of national security. The Department of Justice has rightly argued that judges do not have access to classified risk information as the president does; furthermore, foreign citizens abroad do not have Constitutional rights."

If a judge has no legal basis for issuing a TRO, it seems he is overstepping in issuing a TRO.

sigh...
 
A fact is non-debatable. This is being wildly debated on a national and even global scale, by 2 federal judges, one even a republican.

So just you saying it's a fact does not make it so, in fact, it's just your opinion.

No, they're facts - first Islam is a religious political system, not a race so even if this were a muslim ban, it wouldn't be racist. But it's not a muslim ban, that's clear from the language of the order. And people who aren't citizens of the United States don't have constitutional rights in the United States. Those are facts, they're not my opinion. People are trying to debate them, and they're calling them racist, but that doesn't change the facts.
 
Last edited:
No, they're facts - first Islam is a religious political system, not a race so even if this were a muslim ban, it wouldn't be racist. But it's not a muslim ban, that's clear from the language of the order. And people who aren't citizens of the United States don't have constitutional rights in the United States. Those are facts, they're not my opinion. People are trying to debate them, and they're calling them racist, but that doesn't change the facts.



Perhaps it's just how you worded this, but this is absolutely false.

Any person, immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, or prisoner on US soil or it's territories is protected under the 14th amendment, even non-citizens.

This, is indeed a fact.
 
This from a guy that just called me pedantic.

that's not pedantic and I said you seemed pedantic. If someone comes here seeking asylum and espousing a belief in sharia law because they value the tenets of religious and political islam over those of our constituional republic, we shouldn't let them in. Is that discrimination? maybe, but it's not wrong and it's definitely not racist. That's not a pedantic argument.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it's just how you worded this, but this is absolutely false.

Any person, immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, or prisoner on US soil or it's territories is protected under the 14th amendment, even non-citizens.

This, is indeed a fact.

Here's another fact, they're not immigrants or refugees if we don't let them in. There was the wet foot/dry foot policy, but that only applied to Cubans and I believe it's been repealed.
 
Back
Top