I don’t have a problem with that, but it seems to be the latest scramble to reduce the heat on the whole thing. Like I said earlier, there are a lot of nations that sponsor terror, or nations whence terrorists originate, that aren’t on the list. If it were truly about the safety of US citizens, the list would be 10 feet taller.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with any of this either.
1 Like
Finally what every president in my recollection has done is now upheld by the courts. I wonder how many dangerous people have been allowed into our country while the courts have played political correctness board games with our national security.
No I didn’t.
I just said it’s going slowly, which answers the question I addressed.
Trump IS getting stuff done. All you lefties can do is complain and nip at his heels.
You guys are unhinged, and your posts all over forums like this one demonstrate that.
Keep whining. It’s all you have at this point.
1 Like
and you are a qualified expert. uh huh.
translation: I don’t understand any of this… vetting stuff.
DACA is not Constitutional. Where law exist, the President does not have Constitutional authority to overrule it by edict. That takes an act of Congress.
when will get rid of those activist justices on the left? Can they be impeached?
Are you aware that the people who work in government are the ones you are calling inept, you know, the common Joe Blows you never hear about. The Trump admin only lays out the wherefores and whathows, the rest, the real work, is done by those who have been there a long time.
Yes, it’s clear you don’t get it. Thanks for the affirmation.
Winning.
But 5/4?
Yea, they COULD be, except for the democrats in Congress that would block any attempt. For Federal Judges, incompetence is grounds for impeachment, if they refuse to step down.
LOL, silly liberal judges are now on record as saying campaign rhetoric should be considered when determining the intent of law… how can they argue against the congressional record to determine the intent of law and constitution now? Easy I guess, liberalism does not require consistent logical reasoning, only consistent liberal outcomes.
Yes you did. It’s literally RIGHT HERE in this thread.
@NebraskaFootball Said:
and you replied with, and I quote:
You LITERALLY just blamed Trump not implementing “extreme vetting” on never-Trumpers “running interference and throwing as much sand in the gears as they can” and that it’s taking a while to implement extreme vetting because Trump has to “slog through political mud.”
You LITERALLY just blamed everyone except Trump for not implementing extreme vetting. And you’re sitting here trying to deny you did that. Amazing.
You said it was going slowly because never-Trumpers are running interference and slowing him down, which is exactly what I accused you of doing when I said:
All Trump does is complain and nip at people’s heels. You’re totes cool with that.
Dear Leader, and his Lords among the right-wing media, thank you for parroting their talking point. Now kiss the ring.
2 Likes
libs losing brain cells…either that or even the lib scotus justices are lying
Sotomayor says
It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns
Wait … what did he really say
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,”
Sotomayor lied by omission. I guess she had no other argument.
A bigger question would be now that liberal jurists are on record supporting using campaign rhetoric with absolutely no legal bearing to determine the intent of written law, will they now support examining the congressional record and actual official debate in the congress to determine the actual intent of the same laws or constitutional provisions.
For the record, I don’t support either, just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy on the left.
Here is the Opinion of the Court.
BTW, the actions of the courts were NOT without consequence to the President.
He did have to surrender on Versions 1.0 and 2.0, before he finally wrote Version 3.0 that was actually Constitutional.
Talk of impeachment is moronic.
EVERY Article IIII Justice or Judge has been or will be on the losing end of a panel decision or will have their opinion overturned by a higher court.
If being wrong is grounds for impeachment, we will have to impeach every last Article III Justice and Judge, from Gorsuch and Ginsburg all the way down.
2 Likes
EVERY Article IIII Justice or Judge has been or will be on the losing end of a panel decision or will have their opinion overturned by a higher court.
The above sentence from the previous post should have been extended to read …at some point in their career.
yeah… what should such a justice who is supposed to use the constitution think of a candidate saying they will “fundamentally transform America”?
Trump is cool… The ruling is obvious. That fact that the libs voted against it, is scary.
1 Like
