Breaking: Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order

Let's be real… if someone comes into our country and commits an act of terror, the act is on the one that did it. I'm fine with people being mad about the outcome of the court decision, but terrorists are responsible for what they do. No one else.

 

In future cases their enablers on the courts will also be guilty.

 

Hmm? Nah, the last several terrorist have been American born. Why don't you want to place blame where blame is due? If you're speeding and kill someone, it's not the police's fault because they didn't stop you first.

Be mad if you want, but be real about who is to blame.

 

Of refugees who are Muslims

 

I don't really care about idiot Bush. I care about shredding your assertion that "liberal" judges took a stand against your facist cheeto. Get used to it and expect him to be obstructed and blocked every time he thinks the law doesn't apply to his brainfarts.

 

It goes beyond terrorism but lets not forget that NONE of these people can be vetted.

These people are unskilled and uneducated.
These people will be a burden to a welfare system that is already collapsing under its own weight.
These people don't assimilate, they group together and form Shria-esque communities.
These people come from a land where violence is an acceptably daily occurrence.
These people are programmed from birth with a hateful and violent religion that preaches all non-Muslims should DIE!
These people see women as property.
These people see gays as an abomination.
These people have no business being here.

America first is our new creed.

We need to take care of our own, not spending hundreds of billions to tend to radical 3rd worlders who will forever be a burden at least and a deadly threat at probable most

 

Since 2001 Muslim Terrorists have killed fewer than 5000 Americans on American soil (including 9/11).
Since 2001 Americans have shot and killed 160,000 Americans on American soil.

What, exactly was your point about the security and safety of innocent US citizens?

 

No, it's the court's fault for making speeding legal.

- - - Updated - - -

Because 160,000 is better than 165,000.

 

The ban isn't solely about the nationality its about the undeniable truth of the people who come from this region and the elements of their culture that transcend borders.

The more we let in the more we risk.

Can you imagine what is going to happen when they get here, they setup their little Muslim only zones, they get to kick back live on our dime, but then ...oh ...then they start to wonder "gee, Allahu Akbar jihad".

 

Your preference is noted.

 

I can imagine lots of things. I see you're worried about refugees. You have a better chance of being killed from falling out of your bed than in a terrorist attack. If you want to live in fear, no one can stop you. There are lots of things that are more potentially dangerous than the people you are afraid of, but it's up to you to choose your fear.

 

The lives of these 5,000 Americans mean nothing to you? Because Americans are killing each other anyway why not let in more Muslims. And because women are being raped anyway, why not bring in more Muslims? That's not a sound argument.

 

"W" Bush was a shallow, stupid, hopelessly mislead RINO. And YOU didn't even try to answer the questions I asked. You and your loathsome, liberal demi-god, Obama OWN what happened in Libya, as well as the continuing debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Got nothing to say? NO (*)(*)(*)(*)ing suprise!

 

I know of one crazy Muslim refugee that tried to stab some people. Do you know of more Muslim refugees running around committing acts of terrorism? Link them if you do. I'd like to see the list.

 

Damn those Muslims!

 

Its my desire to take care of Americans first, and provide safeguards for lives that I'd like to be noted.

I don't want to see people in need to have to make it with less because we add foreigners, which we have no responsibility for, to our social service programs.

I don't want to see communities put at ask by which is essentially another racial gang.

I don't want to see homosexuals attacked by people who just came from a country where pushing gays off roof tops is not only tolerated but considered to be a duty to "Allah".

I don't want to see women treated like property hauled around in bags when they're allowed to go outside at all.

I don't want to see young girls raped and molested by gangs of rabid sexual predators who have lived their entire lives in a land that says such behavior is acceptable.

And I don't want to see trucks driving through crowds of people, bombs being set off in cafes, mass shootings at malls, or any other form of terrorist attack occurring simply because a bunch of radical liberals were cucked by identity outrages and put their own countrymen last.

 

This is an absurd reply. Pity. We've had much better discussions.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing is going to prevent all the ills of the world, and certainly not Trump's EO. Relax, man. Or don't… your choice.

 

It's not clear that he won't but the truth of the matter is that he should not have to. The ninth circuit has again lived up to their reputation for getting it wrong. In fact there is actually one of the 29 member judges who has initiated a en banc vote of 11 of those judges. Apparently at least one of the 29 has some integrity.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/bre...ts-another-vote-on-trump-travel-ban-decision/

 

Like going to war in Korea without a formal Declaration of War from the Congress in violation of the US Constitution.
Like going to war in Vietnam without a formal Declaration of War from the Congress in violation of the US Constitution.
Like going to war in Iraq without a formal Declaration of War from the Congress in violation of the US Constitution.

All of which lasted a lot longer than a few months.

 

Correction - damn those radical jihadist Islamists.

 

I don't know. What I heard on the news was they were re-crafting a new EO. [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]¯\_(&#12484_/¯[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I just know that so far, two Republican appointed judges and two Democratic appointed judges have ruled to have a temporary restraining order on the EO. If it is to keep the country safe, then do it the most efficient and expeditious way. If it is to get a win for Trump, I'm bored already, as I don't care about Trump getting a win. I care about my country being in turmoil over politics.[/FONT]

 

Is that really the court's argument? That because only a handful of terrorist acts have happened so far, that they pose no threat or something? I'm not sure exactly what they decided.

 

Do you have a degree in law that makes you knowledgeable enough to interpret this as your comments and your red emphasis implies.


By your interpretation Congress can pass a law that says:

1. All Jewish people are banned from public transportation.
2. We forbid the Courts from reviewing this law.

 

False analogy. All people from the nation of Israel are temporarily banned.

 

The ninth circuit did not address the rule of law. There was no mention of the INA and its specific clause in both the district and appellate court ruling.