Immigration Ban

#978
#978
BowlBrother85 said:
I heard it said that a 4-4 tie would reinstate the order. Perhaps someone with a legal background can clarify that. I still think that the best course of action for Trump would be to withdraw this order and draft a new one that is more carefully crafted. Americans clearly do want restrictions on immigration. The problem here was the sloppiness of the order itself.
Click to expand...

I may not be correct but I believe that when there is a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court the lower Courts ruling (In this case the 9th Circuit Court) ruling stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#982
#982
1972 Grad said:
Why don't most people see the courts for what they are? They are just a bunch of political hacks with robes.....both sides. They are way too powerful when they set immigration policy.
Click to expand...

Why are not the political hacks in Congress doing it?
 
#987
#987
Velo Vol said:
Why are not the political hacks in Congress doing it?
Click to expand...
Good question. I would guess it's because we have had a stalemate for the last 6 years, and Obama would not sign any Republican Bill. That is, if Harry Reid would allow a vote on a Republican House Bill.
 
#991
#991
most people arguing against this ban are using conjecture and dialogue not written on the actual order to argue its something that it's not by definition of the EO.

I think people are making assumptions and the fact that those are being implemented into a judicial ruling is kind of frightening...
 
#994
#994
zeppelin128 said:
The Supreme Court will rule this EO unconstitutional. Only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Unless I'm missing something the EO is constitutional under the statute that has been referenced all over. There is no mention of religion and to assume so is dishonest on the actual EO.

I've seen conflicting reports on this but if the EO only bans those outside of the US and with no citizenship or visa, then they have no rights under the constitution
 
#995
#995
utvols88 said:
most people arguing against this ban are using conjecture and dialogue not written on the actual order to argue its something that it's not by definition of the EO.

I think people are making assumptions and the fact that those are being implemented into a judicial ruling is kind of frightening...
Click to expand...

Trump would have been in a much better position had he and his people not opened their big fat arrogant mouths leading up to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#996
#996
utvols88 said:
I disagree. Unless I'm missing something the EO is constitutional under the statute that has been referenced all over. There is no mention of religion and to assume so is dishonest on the actual EO.

I've seen conflicting reports on this but if the EO only bans those outside of the US and with no citizenship or visa, then they have no rights under the constitution
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I guess Trump will have to wait for his "Easy D".
 
#997
#997
lawgator1 said:
Trump would have been in a much better position had he and his people not opened their big fat arrogant mouths leading up to this.
Click to expand...
On a positive note about the ruling, your side won't be out burning down our cities tonight.
 
#998
#998
lawgator1 said:
Trump would have been in a much better position had he and his people not opened their big fat arrogant mouths leading up to this.
Click to expand...

I don't think that should have an affect on the decision. If it did, it was unprofessional.
 
#999
#999
utvols88 said:
I disagree. Unless I'm missing something the EO is constitutional under the statute that has been referenced all over. There is no mention of religion and to assume so is dishonest on the actual EO.

I've seen conflicting reports on this but if the EO only bans those outside of the US and with no citizenship or visa, then they have no rights under the constitution
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is key. There is far too much ambiguity in the EO. It will be ruled unconstitutional. The administration will draft another I'm sure, but as it stands now it is dead in the water.
 
#1,000
#1,000
zeppelin128 said:
Your last paragraph is key. There is far too much ambiguity in the EO. It will be ruled unconstitutional. The administration will draft another I'm sure, but as it stands now it is dead in the water.
Click to expand...

They should have that EO signed tomorrow with the new language that is satisfactory if they are truly concerned with the safety of the US citizens
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top