Politics The ACLU took Trump to court over his Muslim refugee and immigrant ban — and won

I don't understand most of the complaints with the temporary ban on admissions to the US.

People bitch about singling out Muslims. Well they didn't do that, I would but Trump did not. His administration selected seven countries they say export terrorism.
But people want to continue to say, they are banning Muslims. While also bitching about not banning people from Saudi Arabia, as if they want a Muslim ban?

Well, Bin Laden was from there, Obama had his ass shot and time moves on, it's been 16 years now since 9/11. Perhaps ISIS and Al qeada have morphed and moved to new territory. Dammed if I know.

It seems pretty damn logical to me that time be taken to ascertain how we fight ISIS and who should have unfettered access to this country. Very logical.

 

In one word, "procedure".
Trump is guilty of the same lack of following procedures that Obama was guilty of.

It was not what Obama and Trump have done that was wrong, it is how they did it that made them wrong. Both ignored official procedures. Both placed themselves above the law. Both bit off more than they can chew, and lost the support of a large number of voters whiling to give them and their party a chance.

 

You can call me whatever gives you a nice fat chubby. Most days I'm pretty good at considering the source.....

 

Perhaps you are correct, and thank you for stepping up.
But please clarify just a bit more.

Obama on his own, without input from Congress dictated how many refugees we would take in from several countries. In addition, he did not enforce existing immigration law.
So it seems to me that he sure did not follow any procedure. But I could be corrected.

Trump on the other hand is not violating any law or section of the Constitution that I am aware of as of this moment. Sure could be corrected though.

On the other hand, it seems to me Trump is doing exactly what the Constitution calls for in Article IV

"Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

Several states have already complained about being stuffed with refugees without even being notified, let alone giving consent.

A temporary halt to this activity seems procedurally appropriate, until the official procedures are developed, especially in light of the FBI and Intelligence agencies telling us they can not vet these people.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/f...et-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/

Sorry, link corrected

 

My, you seem feisty today.

 

In case anyone cares about what is actually going on here.

Secure America Now
2 mins ·
[Breaking] : President Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

 

There is no "procedure" in law anywhere that is required to be followed for a President to defend our country from foreign invaders who mean to do us harm, or from countries that fund and train such foreign invaders. It's pretty much his main duty to US.

For Presidents who refuse to defend our borders, or give funds to countries that train terrorists ($150,000,000,000.00 to Iran), you'll be happy to know there IS a procedure for that. It's called Impeachment. Funny you didn't bring that up when it happened.

 

So is anybody besides Saggy Balls Sullivan defending this? Ahh Baldo Rivera and Dentures McGee seem to be in favor as well.

if you are all about this, and aren't an old wet brain senile Sam, then you have no excuse.

 

Ha! That is pretty funny stuff. But forget defense, have you got a damn thing to correct what Maris or I posted?
If not, carry on.

 

Not required and of no benefit to anyone. And I'm certain he had solid legal input from his pending Cabinet members on every EO he has signed to date. I expect the ACLU's pocket judge will be over-ruled on appeal, but their case doesn't really affect any part of Trump's EO other than the momentary snafu of a few dozen foreigners being inconvenienced for a short time due to being in-transit when it went down.

That's over now, as the entire world now knows if they can legally come here or not for the next 120 days, and can/should plan their travel accordingly.

Dems need to stop obstructing, realize they are a party that is literally gushing blood and very near death, and start listening to Real Americans rather than continuing to lecture them.

Constantly expressing outrage over events and decisions that continually turn out to be fake news is not going to improve or return whatever credibility they think they once had in America.

 

I would just like to point out, that the term ^ is being quite charitable.

 

Not any Real ones.

John McCain is nothing more than Hillary without the pantsuit, and nobody outside his pork-barrell recipients in AZ, and the DNC listens to him any more.

 

That brings me to a request to the board.

Can one of you techies photo-shop me a pic of John McCain wearing one of Hillary's pantsuits?

I promise to display it prominently across the interwebs.

 

Trying not to "trigger" anyone.

 

??

 

Interesting. I'd be curious to see your reaction to you being "inconvenienced" by American protestors who might block traffic for a period of time while exercising their civil rights......your past comments suggest you wouldn't take it well....but then, what's inconvenient to foreigners doesn't hold a candle to what's inconvenient to Real Americans....