quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

The JD lawyers arguing this case are Obama leftovers at this point, correct?



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

The JD lawyers arguing this case are Obama leftovers at this point, correct?



.

I believe you are correct. Were these not making the best arguments? I asked myself that when watching the argument.

The advocate did not argue what I would have argued. But, on these things you have only so much time and can easily pick a theory of the case and get stuck in it too early.

I have had to restructure and rewrite my argument to change focus upon realizing that I had a better line to follow late in the writing process. But, if that happened to them, there may not have been time for the response they submitted.

I thought the focus of the Justice Department's oral argument didn't exist. So, it seems that the advocate didn't have any main point - either because she didn't believe in her own argument or because she was still in the "flooded with minutia" stage of her thought process.

One of our appellate judges says, "He who attacks everywhere, attacks nowhere." That often happens when the advocate doesn't pick a main point to drive home.

I honestly believe that Sessions should make some trusted advocacy strike teams to defend the administration around the country. I don't know how he could possibly trust a Justice Department that has people who are committed more to leftist ideology than professional service. The disgraced interim AG was only the tip of the iceberg.

When you want an advocate, you want someone who can't stand to lose your cause and is thoroughly behind you. I find that the second and third effort yields many of the small keys to success. The President deserves zealous, focused advocacy. Pulling committed teams out of the many Justice Department lawyers seems a way to ensure the President's best representation.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
The commies have done it again.

Quick blurb from Fox:

BREAKING NEWS: US appeals court has denied the Justice Department's request to immediately reinstate Trump's refugee and immigration ban

Well that's just great.

So what happens now? We have to wait until this goes to the Supreme Court?

Again, we need to see the order. I understand that the Ninth allowed both parties to submit briefs by Monday. But, I also heard another report that the Ninth will allow the matter to be heard in another District Court to allow another judge to look at it to develop more to consider.

It is also reported that the brief to the Ninth said that the judge in Maine already found that the President's Executive Order was Constitutional.

Again, the Ninth's order needs to be reviewed.

"One in 3.6 billion. That's billion, with a B." A figure I've heard a couple of leftists throwing around, including that emphasis, for the odds that someone will be murdered by a refugee from one of these countries. But if you keep them out, the odds are zero. That's zero, with a Z.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Well of course there haven't been any arrests over the last 8 years. Zero and his cohorts have been express laning them in all that time. They've ignored the immigration laws for near a decade, so that's justification to upend the law? A law that Zippy used and everyone was fine with?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
"One in 3.6 billion. That's billion, with a B." A figure I've heard a couple of leftists throwing around, including that emphasis, for the odds that someone will be murdered by a refugee from one of these countries. But if you keep them out, the odds are zero. That's zero, with a Z.

Lets be realistic: this is the same argument used by liberals to ban guns. We talk about the millions of legal gun owners in this country, and then their response is something like: "If it saves just one life..."

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
"One in 3.6 billion. That's billion, with a B." A figure I've heard a couple of leftists throwing around, including that emphasis, for the odds that someone will be murdered by a refugee from one of these countries. But if you keep them out, the odds are zero. That's zero, with a Z.

Lets be realistic: this is the same argument used by liberals to ban guns. We talk about the millions of legal gun owners in this country, and then their response is something like: "If it saves just one life..."

You certainly have a point but the issue with immigration is who should decide whether that one is enough.

Is it an unelected judge who decides immigration policy or is it the elected President?

There is no statute that says some entity gets to decide whether firearms are detrimental. In immigration law, however, the president has been empowered to decide what is "detrimental" for over 60 years.

The current President determined that further entry without better vetting is "detrimental." That's a very low standard for a president to have to meet.

All this hullabaloo about how Muslims are impacted misses the point. All terrorists from those areas have been Muslim. If one's religious beliefs are inextricably wound up with a death and destruction ideology, the fact that they mixed it with religion does not matter.

The President seeks to stop those with deadly and dangerous objectives.

Unlike American citizens who are vested with full constitutional protections, immigrants and Visa holders are here or entitled to be here as guests.

If you held an exclusive party with your neighbors but, also unknown guests, and learned that invitations were faked by gangs of people who robbed and burned your friends' parties by using fake invitations to get in, I bet you'd look at those invitations more closely before letting guests in.

The statute bears repetition:

"‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ "

The strainer gets even tighter if a guest actually seeks to become a citizen.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, one must be of good moral character and must be "attached to the principles of the Constitution."

If someone's religion will not allow them to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution," they are not fit to be here.

The George Soros, one-world drones may not like that view of self preservation either. But, we are distinct and demand agreement with that belief of those who would be among us as citizens.

In the meantime, guests may be admitted at our discretion.

quote:

Originally posted by dwd1985:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
"One in 3.6 billion. That's billion, with a B." A figure I've heard a couple of leftists throwing around, including that emphasis, for the odds that someone will be murdered by a refugee from one of these countries. But if you keep them out, the odds are zero. That's zero, with a Z.

Lets be realistic: this is the same argument used by liberals to ban guns. We talk about the millions of legal gun owners in this country, and then their response is something like: "If it saves just one life..."

When guns develop minds of their own and follow an ideology bent on killing all non-believers, then I'll agree the two are comparable.

Im not getting too wound up ober this yet. Its taken this Country years to get into the state that we are, and its gonna take years to get it back. Its a marathon not a sprint. Im confident that this will work its way through (however far that is) and will eventually be found Constitutional. Just think of all the effort and expense on the side of the left...just to come up with yet another FAIL.

quote:

Originally posted by XinTX:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Well of course there haven't been any arrests over the last 8 years. Zero and his cohorts have been express laning them in all that time. They've ignored the immigration laws for near a decade, so that's justification to upend the law? A law that Zippy used and everyone was fine with?

Actually there have been arrests, I posted this on page 107, here it is again:

I am pretty sure a whole bunch of Somalis have been arrested in Minnesota under terrorism charges. I know for sure two Iraqis were arrested in Tennessee....the two whose prints were on the IEDs in Iraq. There have been several arrested for spying and such for Iran.

Here are some others from a very quick 20 second search of Google:

In 2010, the Somali (Mohamed Osman Mohamud) arrested on charges he planned to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon was a refugee. He was arrested as he planned to detonate a bomb.

In 2012 Abdullatif Ali Aldosary (an Iraqi refugee) set off a bomb at a Social Security Office in Arizona.

In early 2016 an Iraqi refugee (Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan) living in Texas was accused of planning to bomb a local popular mall.

In September 2016, a Somali refugee went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Knife attacks are signature terror acts for devout Muslims.

Also in September, the Chelsea bomber, Ahmad Rahimi, was arrested and we learned his family came to the US from Afghanistan and were given asylum.

And, we can’t forget the most recent successful attack by Somali refugee slasher, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, at Ohio State.

Lets not forgot that the attacks in Europe, most were from terrorists from the 7 ban countries.

If anyone thinks the Ninth Circus (yes I spelled it correctly, more bad overturn decisions come out of it than any other Court of Appeals), overturn it, you are very sadly mistaken. The Ninth Circus will probably expand the original Restraining Order.

Do we only defend against things that have already happened?

You guys need to pace yourselves or you are going to end up being unhappy every day you read the news.

This is the end of the beginning, as Churchill says. The struggle has only just started. Pace yourselves, or every day you'll be frustrated and angry at how difficult this will be.

My attitude? Each day, I wake up grateful to Donald Trump for stopping Hillary Clinton. If you're frustrated now, imagine Hillary Clinton in the White House, Bill Clinton back in the White House, and a defeated Donald Trump unable to help us.
All you guys who are wrapped around the axle because of the entirely predictable actions of some judge, you need to snap out of it and count your blessings, and you most assuredly have been blessed.

Have some faith

9th circuit order here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/da...7/02/05/17-35105.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You guys need to pace yourselves or you are going to end up being unhappy every day you read the news.

If you are referring to me I thought information would be helpful for those who do not know how these things work.

We are going to see example after example of these court tussles.

Where would members get information about such events? Public opinion is being formed on misinformation. I haven't seen decent analysis anywhere in the media.

I'm referring to anyone whom my remarks may apply. If I have a problem with you or your content, you'd know it.

There is no shame in being liberal. At least, there didn't used to be. This Democratic party is not the party of my parents. It has become the party of left radicals, and my mom would be appalled. My dad would not recognize it.

I see that it has been taken over by the progressive loons. OK. Great. I think that will work for us.

We are no worse off re: refugees than we were before the EO.

Some people woke up and voted for Trump. Let the other 25% wake up. Let them see the increased violence, the terror attacks that won't stop. Let them begin buying guns and getting training. Buying a gun is what started me on this path, after all.

Let the message get out. If the conservatives can get enough of the message out, the Repubs will have a super majority come 2018.

Let the progs dig themselves deeper. Me, I am going to see XXX: Xander whatever it is at the movies. I have to find my second spare mag. And my knife.

Blue skies, right?

Judge Robart does not have a clue and is a political hack. He is not privy to top secret security information, nor should he be, of threats that are known about and already have been dealt with in those 7 countries.

Like it or not actions like this are going to be business as usual for the next four years. President Trump is a very smart and savvy person and I guarantee he is learning from all this. The left is absolutely terrified of him and that the republicans have shown some spine because of his leadership which should bring a lot of satisfaction and they wanted him as the candidate because they were so sure he could never win and would take the republican party and the house and senate down with him.

Buckle your seat belts it is going to be a bumpy but well worthwhile ride.

http://www.politico.com/story/...a-regulations-234626

The REPs are using a 1996 law called the Congressional Review Act that allows Congress to repeal recently enacted regulations by simple-majority votes

Leaders in both chambers are acutely aware that the campaign to roll back Obama-era rules will be limited by Senate time restrictions , which also must make room for confirmation votes on Trump's Cabinet nominees and an ambitious GOP agenda on spending, health care and taxes.

perhaps another reason for DEMs constant attempts at delay

“For the next 60 days around here, that’s probably the most important legislative activity — moving these Congressional Review Act items through the chamber," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

Republicans are digging through a list of more than 200 measures that are ripe for repeal under the review act's time restrictions. They also must consider how many resolutions the Senate can deal with, given its slowness compared with the House.

The Congressional Review Act allows lawmakers to repeal any regulation completed within the past 60 legislative days. That means that any rule the Obama administration finished after mid-June is vulnerable, but that Congress must act by late May or early June, depending on each chamber’s schedule.

Once Congress uses the act to repeal a regulation, no future administration can enact any “substantially similar” rule without lawmakers' approval. Before this week, Congress had successfully used the review act only once, to overturn a Clinton administration rule in 2001.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm referring to anyone whom my remarks may apply. If I have a problem with you or your content, you'd know it.

Thanks. I have bigger issues with chasing off the woodpeckers trying to punch a hole in my roof again.