Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trumps new immigration order struck down by a federal court

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Politicians stopped caring about the average Joe a long time ago. Neither party is there to better us. The scary part is the opposition to good ideas just because it came from the opposing party. Affordable health care IMHO is something that our country needs desperately. financially both Medicare and medicaid together will bankrupt the country at the current pace of expenditures. The parties will not work together to all least try to get some of the outrages cost down!! How is it possible for one person to get an MRI and be charged $500 while an insured person gets charged several thousands for the same exact procedure?? Lobbyist are buy our congressmen and senators. They have way more power than our vote.

    My $.02

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Pedernal View Post
      Politicians stopped caring about the average Joe a long time ago. Neither party is there to better us. The scary part is the opposition to good ideas just because it came from the opposing party. Affordable health care IMHO is something that our country needs desperately. financially both Medicare and medicaid together will bankrupt the country at the current pace of expenditures. The parties will not work together to all least try to get some of the outrages cost down!! How is it possible for one person to get an MRI and be charged $500 while an insured person gets charged several thousands for the same exact procedure?? Lobbyist are buy our congressmen and senators. They have way more power than our vote.

      My $.02
      Cash is king that is why 1 person pays 500. When they charge an insurance company they try a to recoop the millions they dont get from the illegals and welfare recipients. Hospitals and Dr's take it in the shorts on many levels. Just a short explanation in what really is a giant conversational topic.
      But any type of gov. Involvement only makes it much worse

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by flywise View Post
        That means nothing to some of these folks, matter of fact,
        Since trump does not have a D next to his name they would throw a fit if he paid
        Off the national debt, cured cancer and opened the borders to everyone on the planet.
        Touché sir! Touché

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Darton View Post
          Regardless, that is no lawful basis to halt the order
          Yes, there is. It is based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America. Which dictates freedom of religion - and freedom of irreligion.

          Certainly, I've not read the executive order. That said; I expect somewhere in the order there is some verbiage that the reviewing (dissenting) judges picked up on. And they find the campaign rhetoric that Trump spewed out loud and often is impossible to leave out of the game. And there's no denying that the order was prepared by pure amateurs. Namely, Bannon and that other little chicken **** (his name eludes me) that would more be appropriately dressed and entirely suited (no pun intended) Nazi SS outfit.

          That is, objectively, the way I see it. Hey, guys... I'm all for a carefully controlled, vetted and limited immigration policy. But a spade is a spade is a spade. The order fails the True Test / aka / First Amendment. Hell, I barely managed to graduate from college with a major not even remotely close to a law degree can see the obvious.


          Bob Lee
          Last edited by boblee; 03-16-2017, 08:27 PM.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by boblee View Post
            Yes, there is. It is based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America. Which dictates freedom of religion - and freedom of irreligion.

            Certainly, I've not read the executive order. That said; I expect somewhere in the order there is some verbiage that the reviewing (dissenting) judges picked up on. And they find the campaign rhetoric that Trump spewed out loud and oftenis impossible to leave out of the game. And there's no denying that the order was prepared by pure amateurs. Namely, Bannon and that other little chicken **** (his name eludes me) that would more be appropriately dressed and entirely suited (no pun intended) Nazi SS outfit.

            That is, objectively, the way I see it. Hey, guys... I'm all for a carefully controlled, vetted and limited immigration policy. But a spade is a spade is a spade. The order fails the True Test / aka / First Amendment. Hell, I barely managed to graduate from college with a major not even remotely close to a law degree can see the obvious.


            Bob Lee
            1st amendment does not apply to foreigners, and its already been established that even if Trump said he wants to ban all muslims from entering the country while campaigning that cannot be used in judgement of the constitutionality of a presidential order

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by boblee View Post
              Yes, there is. It is based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America. Which dictates freedom of religion - and freedom of irreligion.

              Certainly, I've not read the executive order. That said; I expect somewhere in the order there is some verbiage that the reviewing (dissenting) judges picked up on. And they find the campaign rhetoric that Trump spewed out loud and oftenis impossible to leave out of the game. And there's no denying that the order was prepared by pure amateurs. Namely, Bannon and that other little chicken **** (his name eludes me) that would more be appropriately dressed and entirely suited (no pun intended) Nazi SS outfit.

              That is, objectively, the way I see it. Hey, guys... I'm all for a carefully controlled, vetted and limited immigration policy. But a spade is a spade is a spade. The order fails the True Test / aka / First Amendment. Hell, I barely managed to graduate from college with a major not even remotely close to a law degree can see the obvious.


              Bob Lee

              The first amendment also protects free speech. With that being said it should in no way be taken into account when deciding the legality of this order. The verbiage of the order should be scrutinized not his choice of words on the campaign trail. This decision was made solely based on the fact of partisan hatred and nothing more.

              Comment


                #52
                Very good read and explanation

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by boblee View Post
                  Yes, there is. It is based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America. Which dictates freedom of religion - and freedom of irreligion.

                  Certainly, I've not read the executive order. That said; I expect somewhere in the order there is some verbiage that the reviewing (dissenting) judges picked up on. And they find the campaign rhetoric that Trump spewed out loud and oftenis impossible to leave out of the game. And there's no denying that the order was prepared by pure amateurs. Namely, Bannon and that other little chicken **** (his name eludes me) that would more be appropriately dressed and entirely suited (no pun intended) Nazi SS outfit.

                  That is, objectively, the way I see it. Hey, guys... I'm all for a carefully controlled, vetted and limited immigration policy. But a spade is a spade is a spade. The order fails the True Test / aka / First Amendment. Hell, I barely managed to graduate from college with a major not even remotely close to a law degree can see the obvious.


                  Bob Lee
                  I have not read the order either but can you explain how it's a first amendment violation to temporarely refuse entry to a refugee from a country that does not have an actual government that can provide any type of information on the refugee?

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Pedernal View Post
                    I have not read the order either but can you explain how it's a first amendment violation to temporarely refuse entry to a refugee from a country that does not have an actual government that can provide any type of information on the refugee?
                    Any answer other than NO to your question is wrong.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by flywise View Post
                      Any answer other than NO to your question is wrong.
                      I agree. I was wanting to hear his logic.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Pedernal View Post
                        I agree. I was wanting to hear his logic.
                        It should be interesting

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Trump should rescind the EO and write a new EO forcing Hawaii to take on the next 50,000 Syrian refugees.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by boblee View Post
                            Yes, there is. It is based upon the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America. Which dictates freedom of religion - and freedom of irreligion.



                            Certainly, I've not read the executive order. That said; I expect somewhere in the order there is some verbiage that the reviewing (dissenting) judges picked up on. And they find the campaign rhetoric that Trump spewed out loud and often is impossible to leave out of the game. And there's no denying that the order was prepared by pure amateurs. Namely, Bannon and that other little chicken **** (his name eludes me) that would more be appropriately dressed and entirely suited (no pun intended) Nazi SS outfit.



                            That is, objectively, the way I see it. Hey, guys... I'm all for a carefully controlled, vetted and limited immigration policy. But a spade is a spade is a spade. The order fails the True Test / aka / First Amendment. Hell, I barely managed to graduate from college with a major not even remotely close to a law degree can see the obvious.





                            Bob Lee


                            Wow! Speechless.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by MassMan View Post
                              Trump should rescind the EO and write a new EO forcing Hawaii to take on the next 50,000 Syrian refugees.
                              Good idea, along with Mass. and how about all those sanctuary cities and states

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by flywise View Post
                                1st amendment does not apply to foreigners, and its already been established that even if Trump said he wants to ban all muslims from entering the country while campaigning that cannot be used in judgement of the constitutionality of a presidential order

                                Well, the judges did tie things together somehow and they said no you can't do that Donald J., it's unconstitutional.

                                And the law is their line of work. You'll have to take it up with them.


                                Bob Lee

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X