Random Politics & Religion #24

And then walked back her testimony the next day.

Let to go to the Supreme Court.

Maybe when all of these judges' rulings get overturned, that will give Congress enough incentive to impeach these specific judges and remove them from office.

Since, obviously, they aren't following the law or the Constitution, but their feels, which makes them unable to pass judgement based on the rule of law.

Well that's two people that need a refresher on the three branches of government and checks and balances on power.

Pretty forward language in the opinion.

No, just you.

Lol please point out what article III has to do with anything right now

Well the 4th's a bit more balanced then the 9th, though out here is extremely liberal (4th is in Virginia and the mid-Atlantic coastal city area). They said that the Presidents previous statements would lead a reasonable observer to believe that the purpose of the EO is to exclude a religion which is in violation of the US Constitution. They decided 10-3 to uphold the injunction against it. This doesn't mean it's defeated, only that it needs to go to a higher court to determine the full scope of the law relative to it. This is going to go before the Supreme Court which is far less political motivated and in all probability find it Constitutional as Congress has already granted the President this power.

The left's big defense is that candidate Trump said he would institute a Muslim ban and that President Trump is merely following through on that promise by using vague language. What will be required is specific language in the EO that prevents Religious affiliation from being used as a condition for exemption along with another policy stating that the administration takes protection of religion extremely seriously.

So clearly you've read the ruling, does he judge point to the law where it defines how the presidential power isn't absolute and shows how this particular ban violates that statute?

I'll hold my breath.

(Nausi gives the above post a [+])
So, you are directly questioning Congress's ability to impeach federal judges, which Article III of the Constitution states that these very judges can be removed from power. Not that it happens often, but it does happen.

And in this case, should be the biggest impeachment party there is. Maybe when the liberals are waving signs saying "Impeach Trump" they forgot the comma in the middle and are really telling Trump to start the impeachment process (protip: he can't). I don't know, who knows what goes on in a liberal's mind anyway? Besides alternate reality where Clinton was anointed Queen or something.

Edit: Damn it Rooks

Their argument is a ghost, we establish religious litmus tests on refugees all the time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438536/immigration-religious-test-constitution-does-not-ban-vetting-immigrants-religion


Unfortunately this is yet another distraction provided for liberals so that they can point the the desired activism disguised as legitimacy and then quickly turn their brains off and bury their heads in the ground.

People fleeing religious persecution is not even close to being the same as the "religious test" that Trump wants to apply. He wants to ban Muslims because they are Muslim.

But I would expect nothing less from nausi and the national review blogs.

I was pretty sure that he wanted to ban people from Countries that posed a threat to the US people. Mostly countries known for Terrorism, which are predominately muslim but that isn't reason why he wanted to ban entry.

His ban was stupid for a lot of reasons, but I don't believe it was a religious one. It just unfortunately targeted countries with that religion.

Right, because it doesn't matter whether or not you're Jewish or Christian if you're fleeing a Jewish Holocaust.

Time to turn the brain back on Vic.

Other than the supposed "religious" reason, why, in your viewpoint, was the travel ban "stupid"?

Just the act of doing it period. I understand his reasoning but the repercussions were obvious and clearly effected innocent people across the globe. It prevented people from coming home or even had people scared of leaving to go see their family members, it created issues with people with legitimate work visas (though as far I'm aware those were mostly resolved) and it was done pretty quickly not giving many people time to make the appropriate preparations.

Instead of shutting our doors Japan and China style, we should consider other alternatives to ensure our safety.

It's a temporary thing. Hell, if Trump's EO was done at the day of signing, it would have expired already.

Besides, it doesn't shut people out during the ban. It requires the State Department to "extremely vet" those who want to come into the country during this ban, and also to give time to figure out a reasonable system to let people from these countries in who are here other than to blow up/teach other people to blow up public places.

Neither country is "shutting doors" on them either. They just have a stronger vetting process than what we have, which is basically a questionnaire.

I honestly don't believe that a person whose purpose is to end his life and take out as many people as s/he can will be stopped by a few questions.

Edit: Had to put "Muslim ban" in quotes. Apparently there are too many hacks out there who can't tell the difference between sane national security measures and an actual ban on Muslims.

If Trump's EO was a Muslim ban, he's doing it wrong.

For one, it only names 7 countries out of the dozens of primary Muslim countries.

For two, it doesn't even specify religion at all. I mean, come on now, if you are going to ban something, you got to name what you are banning, right?

For three, it's temporary. Hell, if the courts didn't have Trump Derangement Syndrome, it would have expired already.

For four, get gud son. Let a master at the arts of banning show how to really ban people. At least, I pity the foo who bumps into this foo.

Fixed

First Amendment. It's in the quote.

I mean you can say what you want about it, but fact is that it caused a lot of issues and unnecessary tension. It seemed like a poorly written EO meant only to appease his far right fanatics.

It's cute how you bring up "Impeach Trump" and fail to see how a call to impeach judges based Ina ruling you don't like isn't the same sentiment.

on a ruling*

10 - 3 on the 4th circuit, which usually leans conservative.

Which, in case you haven't been paying attention, would have happened anyway.

Trump signs EO? Liberals go ballistic.
Trump pushes tax reform? Liberals state everyone is going to die.
Trump lets out a loud fart? Liberals demand his impeachment.

It doesn't matter what Trump does. At all. Ever. Liberals are going to *** about one thing or another.

Hell, they are already blaming him for actions taken by others (aka leakers).

Making a passing statement ≠ demanding something.

I'm just making an observation that these judges are, by definition of terms of impeachment due to Article III, are not acting "in good faith." I'm not going out on the streets demanding that these people are removed from the bench.