world

Trump steps up attack on judge, court system over travel ban

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

so-called president is ranting on Twitter again.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Getting slammed on Twitter by Trump has become a badge of honor.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Trump did not elaborate on what threats the country potentially faced.

Well, anything we've ever seen or can image are the potential threats. I can imaging lots and lots.

That doesn't mean they will happen or that spending $50,000,000 trillion dollars to prevent them is viable or smart.

Isn't there something in the Bible about turning the other cheek? http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm That seems to say the US should allow them into the country. President Trump was voted into office by "good Christians", right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Micromanaging micropresident on a microfuse.

Enjoy your microterm while it lasts.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Trump said Americans should blame U.S. District Judge James Robart and the court system if anything happened.

There are probably right wing nut jobs cleaning their guns and nodding right now.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Try to bring up any changes to the second amendment, and so many people get their hackles up and say 'respect the constitution', yet when Trump starts disrespecting an integral part of the constitution, these people are silent.

That said, it's nice to see that there are still some sane people in the Republican party, that are properly speaking up about Trump.

Did anyone else see about the Republican representative that is considering switching to the Democrats? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/hawaii-republican-leader-vocal-trump-opposition-ready-leave-gop-n716071

"What ended up being very problematic for me was that my caucus and others said, 'If you want to stay in leadership, then you need to make a commitment to not criticize the president for the remainder of his term,'" Fukumoto said. "And with what we've been seeing in the news with the different executive orders coming out every day, I didn't believe I could make that commitment."

Fukumoto added that she disagreed with the direction the Republican Party was heading in. "It seems to be punishing dissent, and when you have a political party, you need dialogue," she said.

The Republican party needs to split. There needs to be a sane Republican party. There is a place for them, and when you see how many people hated both sides in this past election, I think that a sane Republican party could win.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In a nation of law, no one is above the law, even the president.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Citizen2012 - I agree. I did not support Trump but I also did not get too excited over the fact he was elected. There were loud outcries the first couple of weeks and some very strong reactions but I always thought that the built in checks and balances would kick (and they did kick in pretty fast). I also think he is going to meet with some pretty strong resistance from his own party, perhaps more than expected.

I am for controlling the border, increasing/creating jobs, etc. however Trump's election actually could set back these causes rather than advance them. Also some of the trade deals do need to be re-examined, but not with exchanges over Twitter.....and I cannot say it enough.....he needs to stop the Twitter! - A President just cannot do that!

Trump will challenge the system and it will be interesting how some of these challenges play out in the courts or with Congress and it will be interesting to see how Trump reacts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Has anyone noticed the level of grimacing concentration, and the length of time, required to produce one of those pretentiously flamboyant signatures? I think he treats these executive orders like an autograph book and he thinks we can't get enough of his celebrity. Well, he is wrong.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Trump doesn't realize that the US government is made up of 3 equal branches

As CEO of a private company, he could do anything he wanted, and every yes-man has to go along

But the US government is made up of people who don't always see it your way and can say no

He's gonna have to learn how to work that new way, or he's gonna end up nowhere

What's he gonna do next, go after the Appeals Court? Is he gonna go after every single individual who says no, like a company CEO would?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump has never encountered anybody except yes-men (and women) and he doesn't know to interact with people in a normal manner. Hence the impetuous response when anyone has the temerity not to worship the ground he walks on. I blame his parents.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Is he gonna go after every single individual who says no, like a company CEO would?

Surely you mean:

like an unsuccessful company CEO would?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let's just wait and see where it goes. Should be interesting.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Let's just wait and see where it goes.

Where it will go, Bass, is that the decent people - regardless of affiliation - will prevail.

Much sooner than Trump hopes, his divide and conquer charlatanism will be stopped.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

There is this thing called LAWs that you have to work through Mr. Trump. Instead of just blindly initiating "actions" you have to check the LAW and see what may prevent you from doing proper legislative orders. If you don't do proper legislative orders you will run into LAWs that can prevent you from properly implementing your goals. But Trump doesn't believe he has to follow laws as president even though he is supposed to.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Oh my...

Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zpqA7FsM9c&t=2s

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens:

Nice, you found a YouTube video counter something no one has ever claimed.

Any other strawmen you want to build up and cut down?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Trump wrote. “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

Poor so-called president Trump.

The courts do not make law, and they don't enforce law. The courts consider the law, sometimes they interpret law, and they find facts. So, don't expect them to swallow Trump's alternative-facts.

Simply stated, Trump's alternative-facts failed to pass judicial scrutiny. If there is a failure, it is Trump's failure to tailor the order to an identified threat. That was probably hard to do since there wasn't an identified threat. It was just another "feeling."

Instead, Trump's order was a political move solely targeting his (aka Bannon's) political base.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

bass4funk: "Let's just wait and see where it goes. Should be interesting."

That's what you said before the appeal getting shot down, which you were upset about. :)

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Seriously? Okay. The so-called president should really grow up.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988?platform=hootsuite

Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

He is on very solid legal and constitutional grounds.

The government brief supported the president's decision on both legal and constitutional grounds, starting with the law. And that starts with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Quoting cases from 2016 and 1977, the Justice Department argued that, specifically in the context of immigration, "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.'" "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Oh my...

Iraqi interpreter blasts protesters of Trump's travel ban:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtK59mzz2s

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So-called businessman, yes. So-called reality TV star, OK. So-called president? That was a stretch!

The micro-managing micro-president with the shortest of micro-terms?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The ban is a con. Period.

Never mind. I won't pull a Spicer and just stop there. The ban is a con. None of the seven countries listed in the ban have ever sent a terrorist ourway. Not one. And none of the countries listed in the ban are the targets of current actionable intelligence regarding an impending attack. This executive order is the absolute definition of fear mongering and appealing to the basest instincts of an ill-informed, gullible base who wouldn't know real from fake if it walked up and kicked them in the family jewels.

Sorry, but I have little patience for stupidity combined with selfish meaness. That's precisely what so-called President Trump's base is at its core: Mean-sprited stupid people, almost to the last man and woman. And the ones who actually are better educated? Opportunistic hacks preying on that stupidity for personal gain, which makes them arguably worse.

Impeachment is just around the corner, folks. Trumpies better get their licks in while they can and steel their nards for the inevitable blowback following their little haphazard jig down Facism Lane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how the link I posted ( Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zpqA7FsM9c&t=2s ) has 2,065 thumbs up with only 100 thumbs down on Youtube, yet gets 7 thumbs down here on JT, lol, did any of the thumbs downers here even bother to watch the video? Nah...

Oh my...

Muslim activist explains why she supports extreme vetting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQvx9qtAkWQ

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's a FOX News YouTube channel. What's surprising at all about people who subscribe to FOX News liking Judge Jeanine's opinion? What I find more interesting is that out of 34,968 views, only 5% gave it a thumbs up. Apparently, Judge Jeanine's hoarse power-rant didn't impress about 33,000 viewers.

Meanwhile, your political posts get regularly buried in down-clicks as JT because, well, these just aren't your peeps here, Serrano, and the majority of JT posters here aren't your brand of conservative, nor will we ever be. No mystery here at all. If you're still amazed about that, even after getting political click-lashings here for years, then you haven't really been paying very close attention, have you?

Meanwhile, your, again, FOX News sourced opinion piece from Asra Nomani, co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement, an organization with a long and distinguished history of a tad over 13 months. She is an parrot for the very worst stereotypes coming from conservative Christian Americans salivating over the possibilities of a religious war with Islam.

Again, it's hihgly unlikely the typical JT poster will visit that link and come back here with a, "Team 'Mericuh! F#$k yeah!!" epiphany.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the majority of JT posters here aren't your brand of conservative, nor will we ever be."

Yeah, y'all be pretty hopeless, ha ha

Fortunately, I ain't no quitter!

Oh my...

Security is worth inconveniencing a few people:

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpUm_oDUhXk&t=1s

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

LOL! You still don't get it, and Sean Hannity sure as hell doesn't either. Or rather, he does understand, but falls squarely into that category of self-serving, opportunistic hacks I wrote about earlier. He's an ambulance chaser pretending to be a journalist. He's an amoral war profiteer stoking fears and fomenting anger all for the purpose of creating a stronger negotiating position for his next contract with FOX.

Let me spell it out for you in a way FOX News seems woefully incable of:

The security "crisis" involving these 7 counties is entirely manufactured. Entirely. There is no clear and present terrorist threat from any of these countries, and there hasn't been for some time now, particularly from Iran and Iraq.

If Trump and his drooling sycophants were serious about protecting America through any sort of ban, then Steve Bannon's . . . err, I mean Trump's slipshod, amateur hour executive order would have put Saudi Arabia right at the top of a meandering list of countries from which actual American-murdering terrorists came, including Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan.

Oh, I forgot to mention Cuba, Taiwan, and Trinidad & Tobago. Tourists from these three nations killed a combined 5 Americans.

The seven nations Bannon, I mean, Trump singled out? Zero. Zero. Zero.

But still, Saudi stands out. Terrorists from there killed 2,300 Americans, by far outpacing even the total number of Americans killed on the remainder of the list.

So, where's the ban on Saudi Muslims . . . errr, I mean "territories?"

Answer: There won't be one. That would upset our oil-based economy.

Trump's laughable "fight" to protect Americans is a dog and pony show orchestrated by Bannon and executed by a clueless and wholly manipulable asshat of a man-child playing at being president. And you continue to lap it up. How does it feel to be used so shamelessly?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

LFRAgain: "There is no clear and present terrorist threat from any of these countries"

Yeah, especially Syria, there's no terrorist threat emanating from there at all, is there?

I'd ask what planet you're from, but that would imply a stable orbit, so, what comet are you riding on?

"He's an amoral war profiteer"

He's not the one who voted for the Iraq war and did his best to create chaos in Libya and Syria, that was Hillary Clinton. Get it straight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Presidential powers still have Constitutional limitations even in the face of extraordinary circumstances.

For instance, when Pres. Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus (petition for wrongful imprisonment), the Courts ruled him unconstitutional - and that was during a Civil War. So just because Lincoln did it to help preserve the Union which itself was a noble goal, doesn't mean it didn't violate the Constitution. So still have to abide by the Constitution even during extraordinary circumstances - and it's the courts' duty to determine that

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For instance, when Pres. Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus (petition for wrongful imprisonment), the Courts ruled him unconstitutional - and that was during a Civil War. So just because Lincoln did it to help preserve the Union which itself was a noble goal, doesn't mean it didn't violate the Constitution. So still have to abide by the Constitution even during extraordinary circumstances - and it's the courts' duty to determine that

Laws are easy to follow when everything is going good, it's when things go bad that people want to stop following the law. And that's exactly what the laws are there for.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites