Page 49 of 59 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 590
Thanks Tree233Thanks

Thread: Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trumpís new executive order

  1. #481
    Established Member Constitutional Sheepdog's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,098
    Thanks
    579

    From
    Kannapolis North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    did you post a case where the SCOTUS upheld a immigration policy that was discriminatory? That's what I asked for.
    I posted that a president can restrict entry into the country at his discretion for the safety of the general public.
    Where your sourse? I told you your opinion is worthless you need facts not your opinion.

  2. #482
    It's a trap AttusBlack's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,460
    Thanks
    175

    From
    In the empty space of your brain
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    go peddle you bullshit "standing" argument to someone else.
    And you wonder why you get "talked down" to. SMFH

    Simply don't respond to my comments then, or keep looking the fool, your choice.

  3. #483
    Established Member Constitutional Sheepdog's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,098
    Thanks
    579

    From
    Kannapolis North Carolina
    I'll post this again for you.
    Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 -660; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 -714; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 . Cf. Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 . Normally Congress supplies the conditions of the privilege of entry into the United States. But because the power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive department of the sovereign, Congress may in broad terms authorize the executive to exercise the power, e. g., as was done here, for the best interests of the country during a time of national emergency. Executive officers may be entrusted with the duty of specifying the procedures for carrying out the congressional intent. What was said in Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 785 , is equally appropriate here:
    KNAUFF v. SHAUGHNESSY | FindLaw

  4. #484
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    69,051
    Thanks
    33794

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by AttusBlack View Post
    And you wonder why you get "talked down" to. SMFH

    Simply don't respond to my comments then, or keep looking the fool, your choice.
    what's the point in continuing to peddle your position on "standing" to someone you already know doesn't agree with it? You think you should be able to pester people and they aren't allowed to object to it?

  5. #485
    It's a trap AttusBlack's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,460
    Thanks
    175

    From
    In the empty space of your brain
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    what's the point in continuing to peddle your position on "standing" to someone you already know doesn't agree with it? You think you should be able to pester people and they aren't allowed to object to it?
    You can not agree all you want regarding standing, all it shows is that you haven't a clue as to how the court system works. Without the plaintiffs showing they have standing (which is also one of the 4 things plaintiffs must show to get a TRO applied), the motion for injunctive relief never would have been heard, thus there would have been NO TRO issued.

    Like I said, you don't have to respond to my comments, yet you choose to. :SHRUG:

  6. #486
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    69,051
    Thanks
    33794

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutional Sheepdog View Post
    I'll post this again for you.
    Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 -660; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 -714; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 . Cf. Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 . Normally Congress supplies the conditions of the privilege of entry into the United States. But because the power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive department of the sovereign, Congress may in broad terms authorize the executive to exercise the power, e. g., as was done here, for the best interests of the country during a time of national emergency. Executive officers may be entrusted with the duty of specifying the procedures for carrying out the congressional intent. What was said in Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 785 , is equally appropriate here:
    KNAUFF v. SHAUGHNESSY | FindLaw
    you keep forgetting that in Trump case there is ample evidence that he set out to deliberately craft a "Muslim ban". It's usually very difficult to prove discrimination. But, when you have a big mouth like Rudy Giuliani flat out admitting it, it's make it really easy.
    Thanks from Eve1

  7. #487
    Established Member Constitutional Sheepdog's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,098
    Thanks
    579

    From
    Kannapolis North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    you keep forgetting that in Trump case there is ample evidence that he set out to deliberately craft a "Muslim ban". It's usually very difficult to prove discrimination. But, when you have a big mouth like Rudy Giuliani flat out admitting it, it's make it really easy.
    YOU KEEP FORGETTING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS
    It's irrelevant what The President may have said.
    What does the law say, not the opinion of an legislate from the bench judiciary?

  8. #488
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    69,051
    Thanks
    33794

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutional Sheepdog View Post
    YOU KEEP FORGETTING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS
    It's irrelevant what The President may have said.
    What does the law say, not the opinion of an legislate from the bench judiciary?
    what are you basing your claim that what Trump and his surrogates say is irrelevant on? Because you say so? Anything that pertains to the drafting of the EO is relevant. What a person say in relation to the pending issues in court has never been irrelevant. Ever.

  9. #489
    Established Member Constitutional Sheepdog's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,098
    Thanks
    579

    From
    Kannapolis North Carolina

  10. #490
    Established Member Constitutional Sheepdog's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,098
    Thanks
    579

    From
    Kannapolis North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    what are you basing your claim that what Trump and his surrogates say is irrelevant on? Because you say so? Anything that pertains to the drafting of the EO is relevant. What a person say in relation to the pending issues in court has never been irrelevant. Ever.
    What am I basing my what on? It's not a claim when facts are being used. What are you basing your opinion on? Do you have any laws on the books that agree with you?

Page 49 of 59 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Washington State Judge Halts Travell Ban Nationwide
    By HadEnough2 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 14th February 2017, 03:53 PM
  2. Alabama Judge Halts Gay Marriage Licenses
    By John T Ford in forum Current Events
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 7th January 2016, 04:47 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14th October 2014, 12:32 PM
  4. Judge Halts New York City Soda Ban
    By lka in forum Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11th March 2013, 10:33 PM
  5. Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st July 2012, 11:44 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed