Court knows threat better than President

[bbsam]

It was a joke.

Ah. Well, you've never been funny before, so...

 

[Turdferguson]

Trump's EO was to stop external people who were potential jihadist terrorists from entering the US.

You are wrong his original EO also targeted citizens with lawful green cards here. Then they said it didn't without amending it. Which is one of the reasons given by the court. What's to keep them from changing it again without amending it.

 

[Turdferguson]

I was just being agreeable ... I had no idea what you meant by "Is not what the founding fathers had in mind when this country was created?"
It seemed you wanted a "Yes" ... I am sorry.

So you are admitting defeat because you have no other argument.

 

[Catatonic]

You are wrong his original EO also targeted citizens with lawful green cards here. Then they said it didn't without amending it. Which is one of the reasons given by the court. What's to keep them from changing it again without amending it.

He issued a Executive Directive to clarify they were not covered under the EO before the case was filed by MN and WA.
The Court chose to ignore that.

A couple of Constitutional lawyers have suggested those be eliminated by issuing a new EO without those overlooked people.
Maybe that's all it takes to clear this up.

 

[Turdferguson]

I was just being agreeable ... I had no idea what you meant by "Is not what the founding fathers had in mind when this country was created?"
It seemed you wanted a "Yes" ... I am sorry.

A all powerful executive branch with no checks placed against them to keep a emperor from taking control. Is what I meant by that statement

 

[Catatonic]

So you are admitting defeat because you have no other argument.
View attachment 119040

Your argument was misunderstood as rambling thoughts ... my apologies.
This is not NF2 or BIO ... thoughts need to be organized and logically presented.

 

[Turdferguson]

He issued a Executive Directive to clarify they were not covered under the EO before the case was filed by MN and WA.
The Court chose to ignore that.

A couple of Constitutional lawyers have suggested those be eliminated by issuing a new EO without those overlooked people.
Maybe that's all it takes to clear this up.

The wording of the EO was not changed to reflect that. The court should just take them at their word that they won't change it again? You aren't that naive are you

 

[Catatonic]

A all powerful executive branch with no checks placed against them to keep a emperor from taking control. Is what I meant by that statement

I certainly disagree with this ... I had no idea.

I am amused by Trump more than alarmed but curtailing the power of the Executive branch and returning to the Legislative branch is a good thing IMO.
The Judicial Branch is the the one branch that seems to be the hardest to control ... that is why I like the new SCOTUS appointee. He may come back to bite Trump in the butt a few times.

 

[Catatonic]

The wording of the EO was not changed to reflect that. The court should just take them at their word that they won't change it again? You aren't that naive are you

Figured you were.

I see your point though.

The Court could have ruled that as abridged or amended it is OK but if it is extended to someone who has already been vetted, then it's a NO GO.

 

[Turdferguson]

Your argument was misunderstood as rambling thoughts ... my apologies.
This is not NF2 or BIO ... thoughts need to be organized and logically presented.

I an not allowed in NF2 so there is another hole in your logic. What the heck is BIO?.
Also your inability to follow posts seem to indicate a personal failing on your part, not mine.
So the in your face gif stands

 

[Turdferguson]

Figured you were.

This isn't NF2 as someone pointed out so two or three word responses aren't allowed. Is that not what you were alluding to in an earlier post

 

[Turdferguson]

I certainly disagree with this ... I had no idea.

I am amused by Trump more than alarmed but curtailing the power of the Executive branch and returning to the Legislative branch is a good thing IMO.
The Judicial Branch is the the one branch that seems to be the hardest to control ... that is why I like the new SCOTUS appointee. He may come back to bite Trump in the butt a few times.

I am sure the other people's throughout history who have been subjected to an egomaniacal leader with a loose grip on what is right and what is wrong were giggling too. Up until he turned on them and stripped them of their rights

 

[Catatonic]

I am sure the other people's throughout history who have been subjected to an egomaniacal leader with a loose grip on what is right and what is wrong were giggling too. Up until he turned on them and stripped them of their rights

And I thought the Republicans were the one's that used fear as a tool.

 

[Turdferguson]

Figured you were.

I see your point though.

The Court could have ruled that as abridged or amended it is OK but if it is extended to someone who has already been vetted, then it's a NO GO.

That's not what they were arguing though. Their contention was that the court had no right to even review his EO, because it falls under national security

 

[Turdferguson]

And I thought the Republicans were the one's that used fear as a tool.

Do you fear the truth?

 

[Catatonic]

I am sure the other people's throughout history who have been subjected to an egomaniacal leader with a loose grip on what is right and what is wrong were giggling too. Up until he turned on them and stripped them of their rights

This did make me laugh .. seriously.
I have been laughing at the hysterical reactions of the anti-Trump people.

I have more faith and belief in the strength of the US Government.

 

[Catatonic]

Do you fear the truth?

No but I fear the fear ... it makes people act irrationally and in groups.

 

[Catatonic]

That's not what they were arguing though. Their contention was that the court had no right to even review his EO, because it falls under national security

Never heard that from the Executive branch but the AG office replies to the Court might back that up.

 

[Turdferguson]

No but I fear the fear ... it makes people act irrationally and in groups.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

 

[BrownArmy]

With one search on Google of "deaths Internal terrorists since 9/11" I was presented with a page full of results that stated the opposite ... what can I say.

Your assertion did not pass the smell test and still doesn't in my mind.

Not to mention relevance to the topic. Internal terrorists were not addressed by this EO.

It's a funny thing about google or whatever engine you choose - it curates what it shows you partially by what you search.

I don't know what your browser is, but hit 'private browsing', or the equivalent - now your browser isn't showing you what it thinks you want to see, but an actual spread of what you asked for, ranked simply by numerical equivalence and not by 'likes' or whatever.

Rant over.

I agree with you, I got a little off-field.

I stand by my initial post - each branch of our government is, by definition, a check against the other branches.

I agree with your assessment of the legislature - they wouldn't last at UPS, where results matter.

But it's not enough for the executive to say, 'It's important, believe us'.

That's not how things work, and in this case, Trump and his team simply didn't have a case.

Now, if they changed the EO, we might be having a different conversation.

But, like so many things about this nascent Presidency, they seem to like to shoot first, and aiming seems to only happen when they're questioned.