Protesters in Seattle hold signs during a demonstration against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban in this May photo. Photo: AP
world

Another U.S. appeals court refuses to revive Trump travel ban

58 Comments
By Dan Levine and Lawrence Hurley

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

Lawyers for Hawaii called the order a "thinly veiled Muslim ban."

Yup. The ban isn't going to happen. Find someone else to direct your hatreds against.

15 ( +17 / -2 )

"I think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence," Spicer told a briefing.

Agreed. So stop wasting everyone's time with silly bans from countries where we've had no terrorist attacks.

"The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality," the court wrote, referring the combined populations of the six countries.

Right. As the other courts have said. Repeatedly.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

In a recent JT story, it was reported that Japan accepted less than 3000 refugees last year. President Trump is trying to protect the USA so that the USA can protect SK and its neighbors. Most Americans will accept refugees if the refugees enter according to law. Japan needs to step up its efforts to have the same philosophy and accept its fair share of refugees.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"I think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence," Spicer told a briefing.

What has Trump been doing with the time this has been in the courts? Nothing, unless whining counts.

Trump said he needed the temporary ban to implement extreme vetting, but it turns out the ban itself was the vetting because they haven't worked to implement anything.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Maybe it's a rule of the Trump administration that nobody must know more than the flying toupee on any subject. And since he knows nothing whatever about the law or the constitution, nor is anybody else allowed to. Hence the catastrophic failure of this 'policy'.

And as for the cabinet love-fest, well no parody writer would get away with anything so ludicrous, on the grounds of a lack of realism.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Classic to hear the right complaining about racism, xenophobia, and penis size issues.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

If you can't be President without breaking laws, that's a pretty clear sign that you're unfit and unqualified for the job. Thankfully the courts aren't afraid to do what the gutless GOP won't.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Will be interesting if the Supreme Court vote is as partisan as all the other votes have been.

If so, then we know this is just a political thing, not a law thing.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Oh, so if the SC doesnt rule in favor its a political thing? Brilliant.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

YYoure gonna win so much you'll get tired of winning - Trump on the campaign trail

MMaybe he should give up on the travel ban and whip out the secret plan to defeat ISIS.

Amazing that Trump's supporters are sticking by him against all odds. It's some mind of psychosis. They know difference between right and wrong. The just don't care....

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Oh, so if the SC doesnt rule in favor its a political thing? Brilliant.

No, every vote so far has been along partisan lines. Everyone for it, Repub background and everyone against it, Dem background. So how will the Supreme Court rule? I expect they will rule based on law, not on partisanship.

Because while these liberal Dem activist judges can play around with their rulings, the Supreme Court cant. The previous judges dont want President TRUMP to have these powers that the president has by law. The Supreme Court doesnt have that luxury to play games. If they remove these presidential powers from President Trump, they are also removed from all other Presidents in the future, pretty much forever. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court can rule any president BUT Trump has these powers simply because he tweeted something.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Amazing that Trump's supporters are sticking by him against all odds.

Just like I said he would win the election when almost all of you said he wouldnt and the media had Hillary at 99% chance. Never count Trump out until its done.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Oh so, judges ruling against the travel ban are activist judges, but the judges ruling in favor of the travel ban are not? Again, just brilliant.

Have you ever considered, that after half a dozen rulings against the travel ban, that maybe the travel ban is unconstitutional.

Never counf Trump out until its done.

I know you are a true believer, but what the hell does that even mean?lol

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Oh so, judges ruling against the travel ban are activist judges, but the judges ruling in favor of the travel ban are not? Again, just brilliant.

yes, so far. Why else has EVERY single Dem judge ruled against it and every single Repub ruled for it? Is it not the same exact law being looked it? So far, it is not about the law, it has been about how each person interprets the meaning of the law. I want the Supreme Court to look at the law as written, look at the Executive Order as written and make a determination while leaving partisanship, feeling and personal interpretation out of it.

I know you are a true believer, but what the hell does that even mean?lol

Means exactly what it says. Just like he couldnt win the election, but did. Just like he cant win with the travel ban but will. Just like he would get impeached by now, but he hasnt. Comey will be the end of him, they said. Yet it seems Comey only ended himself once all these other leaks he did come out (and maybe Lynch).

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

yes, so far. Why else has EVERY single Dem judge ruled against it and every single Repub ruled for it? Is it not the same exact law being looked it?

As you've noted, it seems rather silly to single out Democrats for partisanship while ignoring the fact that Republicans have been in favor of the travel ban. Is that not partisanship?

I want the Supreme Court to look at the law as written, look at the Executive Order as written and make a determination while leaving partisanship, feeling and personal interpretation out of it.

Rather hard to do with the President calling it a travel ban, would you not agree? Also, why shouldn't Trump's comments be taken into consideration.

Finally, this ban has been suspended for longer than it was supposed to have beem implemented. If this ban was so essential to American safety, why haven't there been any terror attacks? The ban was supposed to be needed to give the admin time to come up with an immigration strategy? Has that not been implemented yet? Why not?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Yet it seems Comey only ended himself once all these other leaks he did come out  (and maybe Lynch).

Propagating conspiracy theories as the truth, again?

I know not seems, but there is only a lot of hope and misinformation in your statement, which is a problem with the alt right. The problem is the truth doesn't support your agenda.

There was no leak. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The memos are not classified documents.

When the NYT published the story, it was obvious the memos came from Comey. It could have been someone currently at the top of the FBI, which was a small possibility but not as likely as Comey himself.

Lynch's request was stupid and had absolutely no effect on the FBI's investigation. That is why Comey went with it. It changed nothing, but it means the world to you.

Russia on the other hand is the biggest attack on America by a foreign power since Pearl Harbor, but you want it to go away.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

There was no leak. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The memos are not classified documents.

Then why did Comey not give them to the NY Times himself? Better yet, why didnt he give them to the FBI like he should have? How about giving them to the Congressional committee? Also why was he so careful to say that the CONTENT of the memos was read aloud to the NY Times, and that they were not given actual copies of them.

If not a leak, then just email the actual documents direct? Why all the subterfuge? because he knew neither his friends nor NY Times should have the content of his work related conversations with the President. Government employee, Government laptop in a government car on government paid time. but its personal? OK then.

When the NYT published the story, it was obvious the memos came from Comey. It could have been someone currently at the top of the FBI, which was a small possibility but not as likely as Comey himself.

Exactly! Just as obvious that the other 6 leaked stories written by the same reporter could have come from within the FBI, but that is not as likely as coming from Comey himself. I believe Sessions will have a lot to say tomorrow anyway.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Russia on the other hand is the biggest attack on America by a foreign power since Pearl Harbor, but you want it to go away.

No I want to the focus to be on what we can do to prevent this attack from happening again. There is NO COLLUSION, so investigating people who supposedly helped Russia attack us is a waste of time. They did it on their own, so look into the why and how of that.

Lynch's request was stupid and had absolutely no effect on the FBI's investigation. That is why Comey went with it. It changed nothing, but it means the world to you.

Wasnt request, was an order. To downplay an active investigation into a matter. It is easy for anyone to see what the desired outcome is once the importance of the investigation is downplayed like that.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Just like he would get impeached by now, but he hasnt.

You can thank the GoP cowards for that one.

What's Trump's approval rating?

Around 38% after trending down from a near high of 42% from the beginning of May.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wasnt request, was an order. To downplay an active investigation into a matter. It is easy for anyone to see what the desired outcome is once the importance of the investigation is downplayed like that.

Huh?? Comey couldn't be fired by Lynch.

Comey could have refused, and he testified to that.

He didn't refuse because it didn't matter, and he testified to that.

It is easy for anyone to see what the desired outcome is once the importance of the investigation is downplayed like that.

In simple non-conspiratorial terms or acting like "everyone" knows, what was the importance?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There is NO COLLUSION, so investigating people who supposedly helped Russia attack us is a waste of time.

How do you know? The investigation isn't done.

Basically you're saying "without investigation, I know there was no collusion, so we don't need an investigation into whether there was collusion, since I have decided there wasn't, even though I didn't investigate it".

Surely even you can see how ridiculous that concept is.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853

Approval rating is higher than Bill Clinton's was at the same point. Rasmussen has him at 46%. Plus, polls dont matter anyway as the election proved.

As you've noted, it seems rather silly to single out Democrats for partisanship while ignoring the fact that Republicans have been in favor of the travel ban. Is that not partisanship?

It is either partisanship or the correct ruling, the Supreme Court will decide. My point is that I dont want to see partisanship at that level, I want analysis of and a ruling on the actual law and order. You had better hope the partisanship doesnt continue because if it does, you lose 5-4.

I am hoping for a non partisan vote of 6-3 or 7-2 or even 9-0 either for the ban or against it. That way we can know once and for all what the law states concerning Presidential power to protect USA. if it is 5-4, we will only suspect partisanship again, just from the other side.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

without investigation, I know there was no collusion,

What has the last 11 months been? Not ONE person has any evidence at all of collusion. Interference from Russia, yes, they have some. Collusion no.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Then why did Comey not give them to the NY Times himself?

He explained that in his testimony. Google is your friend.

And since you seem to be saying that the problem isn't the content of the "leak" that is a problem, but rather the leak that was the problem, surely you would agree that the same is true for Hillary's emails right? That the people should have ignored them, because the content of the mails was irrelevant, and that the problem was that they were leaked, right?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Not ONE person has any evidence at all of collusion. Interference from Russia, yes, they have some. Collusion no.

"I haven't actually been part of the investigation, nor have I seen the evidence that they are investigating, but what I can say without having seen any evidence nor been part of the investigation is that there is absolutely not evidence nor anything worth investigating"

Surely even you can see how ridiculous that statement is, right?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

He explained that in his testimony. Google is your friend.

Some nonsense about seagulls that made no sense. Was no need to involve his friend unless that is what he has always done to avoid detection all the other times he leaked.

And since you seem to be saying that the problem isn't the content of the "leak" that is a problem, but rather the leak that was the problem, surely you would agree that the same is true for Hillary's emails right? That the people should have ignored them, because the content of the mails was irrelevant, and that the problem was that they were leaked, right?

Hillary's emails also should not have been leaked. But you couldnt unsee what you read, and Clinton and her people made no effort to deny the truth of any of them. Trump and his people say the Comey memos are untrue in some parts. So if they can prove any of that, then we can unsee them and identify them as fake. Couldnt do that with Hillary cause they were real and true, unfortunately for her.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

"I haven't actually been part of the investigation, nor have I seen the evidence that they are investigating, but what I can say without having seen any evidence nor been part of the investigation is that there is absolutely not evidence nor anything worth investigating"

the Feb 14th NY Times article claiming proof of collusion was specifically identified by Comey as being false, along with many many other stories about classified information. His words.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.

> COMEY: Because I was worried the media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point, and I was actually going out of town with my wife to hide, and I worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach...

1: So if it was from an anonymous source, he felt there would be enough intrigue to get a special counsel appointed to find out who this person was. Only problem was it was just Comey himself, not a third party who could tell us what happened between him and Trump. So special counsel opened on false pretenses that something needed to be investigated when Comey should have just given the memos to the already open investigation. 2: Why was he hiding if what he did was perfectly fine. Looks like he was trying to be out of town hiding so that he would not be suspected of doing what he claims was perfectly fine.
-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Hillary's emails also should not have been leaked. But you couldnt unsee what you read

Exactly. Just like the people now know the president tried to obstruct the investigation. The fact that Comey's comments were 'leaked' (even though they weren't confidential in the first place) doesn't somehow excuse Dear Leader's actions.

Trump and his people say the Comey memos are untrue in some parts.

Unfortunately for them, Dear Leader and his people have been caught lying repeatedly, and Comey has a pretty stellar reputation. So it's pretty doubtful that Comey suddenly started writing down lies as memos, and much more likely that they are lying when they try to claim his memos are untrue, particularly seeing as it makes them look really, really bad if his memos are true.

Couldnt do that with Hillary cause they were real and true, unfortunately for her.

Same as with Comey's memos.

the Feb 14th NY Times article claiming proof of collusion was specifically identified by Comey as being false, along with many many other stories about classified information. His words.

Where did he say it was all lies? Seems like you are taking his statement that a single article was incorrect, and deciding that means absolutely everything is correct.

Surely even you can see how ridiculous that is.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ah well, all of this will be found out by the end. Comey's memos will be determined to be true and it will also be found out what else he leaked, if anything.

Back to the topic of the travel ban, although I want to see it go into effect, I hope it is not by a 5-4 vote. Then I will have to hear all the liberals whining the same way Trump people have had to whine every time it got blocked by a partisan vote. Its not a good feeling for either side when you cant get anyone to make a decision based on what the law actually says.

Most decisions now seem to be based on who does or did it, rather than what the law actually states. If the law doesnt mention intent, then intent is not to be part of the determination, etc.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

No, every vote so far has been along partisan lines. Everyone for it, Repub background and everyone against it, Dem background. So how will the Supreme Court rule? I expect they will rule based on law, not on partisanship.

You've been going on and on about how your losses are because the judges have been appointed by Democrats so they must be political activist judges, but now you get a panel whose majority was appointed by Republicans and suddenly they will judge exclusivly by the rule of law?

What a load of self-serving crap.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Better yet, why didnt he give them to the FBI like he should have?

And yet not a single peep from you about Trump's 'tapes', which you believe exist, not being in the hands of the FBI?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Will Azog Sessions trip himself up walking this legal minefield? Do the senators even have a translator that speaks Orcish?

Ah well, this will be yesterdays' scandal when Trump fires Mueller. All tiny fingers point to people going to gaol over the Russian scandal.

Eitherway, our Russian paid comrades can't be getting much shuteye. Eh Black?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The most overturned court in the nation. Oh, why am I NOT surprised?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The most overturned court in the nation. Oh, why am I NOT surprised?

Not true. Please stop echoing everything that Sean Hannity is blurting out on Fox News.

Here is a real fact for you:

According to Politifact (a site you have referenced before when it served your needs):

"The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit is in third place."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Not true. Please stop echoing everything that Sean Hannity is blurting out on Fox News.

Yep. Fake news. But in the bubble they believe it unquestioningly.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Not true. Please stop echoing everything that Sean Hannity is blurting out on Fox News. 

How do you know I got that from Hannity? I usually work around the time he's on.

Here is a real fact for you as well:

It’s also clear that, while the 9th Circuit has the second-highest rate of reversal among the federal appeals courts, it isn’t dramatically outside the mainstream. Between 1999 and 2008, all of the circuits had reversal rates of at least 55 percent at the Supreme Court, a study by lawyer Roy E. Hofer shows. Eleven had reversal rates of at least 60 percent, and six were above 70 percent. While 80 percent is undeniably high, it isn’t appreciably larger than other courts, all of which struggle under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.

Interesting, may not be the highest, but high enough,

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/12/the-9th-circuits-reversal-rate-has-nothing-to-do-with-liberal-judges/

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

How do you know I got that from Hannity? 

Because it is pretty much word for word from the recent nonsense that he has been pushing.

I usually work around the time he's on.

I'm sure you know how to use a DVR or visit Fox's website. There are also plenty of right-wing blogs that immediately post whatever he says.

Interesting, may not be the highest, but high enough,

You just cannot admit that you got something wrong, and now you seem to be moving the goal posts from The Ninth " . . . is the most overturned court in the nation," to " . . . it may not be the highest, but high enough."

Finally, your link makes no sense since it says in the title that the "reversal rate has nothing to do with liberal judges." Do you even read your sources?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Because it is pretty much word for word from the recent nonsense that he has been pushing.

Interesting coincidence .

 I'm sure you know how to use a DVR or visit Fox's website. There are also plenty of right-wing blogs that immediately post whatever he says.

True, but if I do have time, I would rather watch it on the TV.

You just cannot admit that you got something wrong, and now you seem to be moving the goal posts from The Ninth " . . . is the most overturned court in the nation," to " . . . it may not be the highest, but high enough."

I never said, I make mistakes.

Finally, your link makes no sense since it says in the title that the "reversal rate has nothing to do with liberal judges." Do you even read your sources?

 Eleven had reversal rates of at least 60 percent, and six were above 70 percent. While 80 percent is undeniably high

May not be the highest, but still high and that means, that the possibility of the ruling being overturned. Also with Gorsuch on the SCOTUS, that reality of it coming to fruition might come true.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is "the most overturned court in the country."

— Sean Hannity on Thursday, February 9th, 2017 in on Fox News

bass: (The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) The most overturned court in the nation.

Seems to support the opinion that the right-wing base repeats misinformation spoon-fed to them by their politicians and media.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Interesting coincidence

It sure is.

I never said, I make mistakes.

Maybe you should start since you obviously made one. You posted something that was simply not true. I'd say that qualifies.

May not be the highest, but still high and that means, that the possibility of the ruling being overturned. (sic)

All of the circuit courts have been overturned at one time or another. Even the 10th Circuit has a 42% rate (the lowest among all of the circuit courts), so there is always the possibility of any circuit court ruling being overturned by the SCOTUS. However, if that gives you hope, then go ahead and cling to it.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Anyway, how many times has Donny lost now? How many months since this EO was blocked?

Dunno . . .

Let me help refresh your memory. Here are Trump's failures so far:

Travel bans --blocked several times by several different courts.

Drain the swamp -- Trump has put six Goldman Sachs executives (including Bannon) in charge of some key posts and departments. He did this after criticizing the close ties between Wall Street and Washington while he was campaigning and pulling one over on his supporters. This makes him a hypocrite and a promise-breaker. Drain the swamp? Nope, he just replaced the alligators with crocodiles.

Healthcare -- He promised to repeal the ACA, but when it was clear that he didn't really have a good alternative plan, even the GOP bailed on this failure.

Tax Reform -- What tax reform? Where did it go?

Mike Flynn's resignation--since you want to give him credit for putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS (even though he didn't--that was Mitch McConnell--we've been down this road before) for simply nominating him, then he will have to take the blame for this boondoggle based on simply nominating someone.

Build the Wall--How's that Game of Thrones-like southern wall shaping up? With no funding approved by Congress (at least yet), how and when is this going to be built?

Executive Branch vacancies: 533 appointments which require Senate approval have not been filled. Only 22 of 24 positions have been filled.

The Russia scandals - the firing of Comey and now the possibility of Mueller being fired will only make Trump look worse than Nixon. The are many in Trump's inner-circle who are being investigated by either a Senate committee or the FBI for their possible roles in Russia's interference with the election and other nefarious ties. However, go ahead and give a "LOL," "ROFL," "LMAO," or other juvenile retort when sweeping this point under the rug and declaring it to be no big deal.

So, I'd say that he's not doing too well.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Is America tired of winning yet?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Thank heavens for the judicial branch.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let me help refresh your memory. Here are Trump's successes so far:

The biggest, got a very fine Conservative Justice to the Supreme Court

Illegal Immigration down 67% and the wall hasn't been built yet, threats do work, astounding.

The DOW closed above 20,000 on January 25th and the March 1st rally matched the fastest-ever 1,000 point increase in the DOW at 24 day

Renegotiating NAFTA (thank God)

Got rid of those constraining EPA rules

Forced NATO to pay and contribute more than what they have been paying.

Leaving TPP (finally)

Unemployment is at a 16 year low.

9, Signed the reform extension for veterans choice health care.

Already signed over 66 executive orders

But if you look at the positive side (libs view things through a one-sided skewed perspective) he did quite well actually.

Could he do more? Sure, if the Dems would step out of his way, stop crying, stop the witch hunt, put themselves to use, but that's not in their DNA to do so.

All in all, I think he's doing quite well so far.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign called for a"total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

"The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality,"

We know perfectly the process, first Banning then Arresting and Deporting people only based on their nationality or religion, this is so wrong ! I can't believe we fought the nazism in ww2 to arrive to this. You simply can't do anything under the excuse of pretending fighting terrorism or you end up being no different than them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

but now you get a panel whose majority was appointed by Republicans and suddenly they will judge exclusivly by the rule of law?

Read what I said! I said that if the ruling is 5-4 along partisan lines then it looks like the Supreme Court is doing the same thing that the lower courts did. And that is WRONG, I want an opinion on the law without partisanship, and we have not gotten that yet from either liberal court.

So I specifically said I hope it is NOT 5-4 vote and that they actually look at the law and come up something other than 5 Repubs FOR and 4 Dems AGAINST.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh and remember when all of you said Melania would never move in the White House and that she doesnt even like Trump? Another promise kept and more fake news! I saw her and Barron moving in. (of course the media and Trump haters on Twitter had to make inappropriate comments about Barron but that is to be expected.) More winning will be happening now that the family is around to keep him more grounded and off Twitter late at night. No more sad, lonely Trump fake news!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I want the Supreme Court to look at the law as written, look at the Executive Order as written, Trump has stated it numerous times that the it was a "Muslim ban" its unconstitutional to discriminate against a person because of their race or religious beliefs. Trumps team has repeated failed to supply sufficient justification as to why travel ban is needed. Trump needs 5 out of 9 votes by the US supreme court , if its decided on a purely legal setting then its unlikely hell win, if its done on partisanship vote then its possible but it makes the US legal system a total farce.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ Bass:

Most of your perceived Trump "successes" are only "successes" in the minds of hyper-partisans and hardcore Trump supporters. The majority of your list might make Trump's base happy, but for everyone else, they are major steps backwards. For example:

The biggest, got a very fine Conservative Justice to the Supreme Court

So, you believe that the politicization of the SCOTUS is a good thing? I thought that the justices were supposed to be independent non-partisans who interpreted the law for what it truly means--not for some political ideology. Blacklabel actually put it best in his post--we need decisions based on the law--not by straight votes from justices associated with political parties and their interests. When that happens, the judicial system of checks and balances fails--and we all lose.

Got rid of those constraining EPA rules

Yes, let's trash the environment so that companies can make money and their CEOs can line their pockets at the expense of having things like clean air to breathe or water to drink. Let's have more Superfund sites, right? Trump's EPA rollbacks are not a good thing and will end up hurting people--like the ones in Flint, MI (and no, I am not blaming Trump for Flint, but his trashing of EPA rules could cause similar things to happen like they did in Flint).

Already signed over 66 executive orders

Last year, you called Obama a "dictator" and other names because he signed Executive Orders. Now that Trump has done it, you're all for it and are deeming it a "success." Let's not forget that some of those 66 Executive Orders have been struck down by the courts, so I'd say that there is nothing to chirp about there.

Renegotiating NAFTA (thank God)

This hasn't happened yet. He's called for it, but as of today, there has been no renegotiation of anything.

Forced NATO to pay and contribute more than what they have been paying.

No, like your NAFTA claim, he brought it up, and some countries agreed that they needed to increase their financial commitments, but no actual figures have been reported which support this claim.

As far as the DOW, unemployment, immigration, and your other so-called successes that you attributed to Trump, please tell us the exact policies that he made which made these things possible. Please cite specific legislation or policies that we can look up and verify.

Finally, I agree with pulling out of the TPP. Many Bernie Sanders' supporters agree with this too.

Could he do more? Sure, if the Dems would step out of his way, stop crying, stop the witch hunt, put themselves to use, but that's not in their DNA to do so.

Pure hypocrisy on your part. During the entire Obama Administration, the GOP did the exact things that you complained about above, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The majority of your list might make Trump's base happy, but for everyone else, they are major steps backwards. For example:

Well, the Democrats and the Trump haters, I wasn't talking about the Coastal looney states of the US.

So, you believe that the politicization of the SCOTUS is a good thing? 

Yes, I want 4 conservatives a moderate and 4 liberals, perfect. We now have that missing conservative. Kudos!

Yes, let's trash the environment so that companies can make money and their CEOs can line their pockets at the expense of having things like clean air to breathe or water to drink. 

Dear Lord....

Last year, you called Obama a "dictator" and other names because he signed Executive Orders.

Executive orders that needed bipartisan support, Obama was skilled at jumping over Democrats to get his agenda through and never even tried to compromise on any of it. That was the main reason. Trump kept his promise and by executive order erased a lot of Obama's disastrous legislations.

Now that Trump has done it, you're all for it and are deeming it a "success."

If Democrats are willing to put Russia aside for just a moment and work for the American people, of course I would prefer it.

Let's not forget that some of those 66 Executive Orders have been struck down by the courts, so I'd say that there is nothing to chirp about there.

Hmmm...not true, but ok, if you insist.

As far as the DOW, unemployment, immigration, and your other so-called successes that you attributed to Trump, please tell us the exact policies that he made which made these things possible. Please cite specific legislation or policies that we can look up and verify.

I can tell you don't follow the Stock market.

Finally, I agree with pulling out of the TPP. Many Bernie Sanders' supporters agree with this too.

Great! We agree, that wasn't so hard.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Trump has stated it numerous times that the it was a "Muslim ban" its unconstitutional to discriminate against a person because of their race or religious beliefs. Trumps team has repeated failed to supply sufficient justification as to why travel ban is needed. Trump needs 5 out of 9 votes by the US supreme court , if its decided on a purely legal setting then its unlikely hell win, if its done on partisanship vote then its possible but it makes the US legal system a total farce.

Yes, so I dont want the legal system to be the partisan farce it has been so far.

Ok, its unconstitutional to discriminate against a person because of their race or religious beliefs. But this was put into place for people who were trying to immigrate into the USA and assimilate into their new life as Americans. As well as protecting people who were already citizens to be able to worship in any way they chose and not be discriminated by race.

But, did this also apply to people who are non citizens, who have no desire to assimilate into US way of life and values. They in fact despise us specifically due to our own religious beliefs and values being against theirs. So in order to not discriminate on race or religion we have no choice but to let admit anyone in as to not inconvenience them or their family? Even from a group of people whose religion tells them to to wipe us off the earth? THAT is what I want to Supreme Court to decide,not just giving us another generic discrimination or not or what is mean or not type decision.

This type of ban CAN be done and has been done in the past by other presidents. Does our current situation and all the world attacks in the name of Islam now support what in other situations would be seen as discriminatory, or not?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

we need decisions based on the law--not by straight votes from justices associated with political parties and their interests. When that happens, the judicial system of checks and balances fails--and we all lose.

I fully and honestly believe that. But every time the liberals get to vote, they vote partisan. But every time there is even a minor issue, Repubs recuse themselves when Dems never would. If Mueller were Session's friend and not Comey's he would have been forced to recuse already. Sessions recused, Nunes recused, 2 judges on travel ban case recused. But no Dems. No talk of Mueller recusing or Ginsberg from Supreme Court recusing.

The Repubs control all three branches of government but cant get anything done because they keep trying to do the right thing and appear moral when the other side wont. They really need to just do an Obama, say elections have consequences and ram through the agenda they were elected to do. Then after that discuss something where both sides can just agree to be nice again from now on.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Here are Trump's successes so far:

The Muslim ban fails again. But even if it passes the Supreme Court it's only 120 days. What kind of ban is that?

Also, where is the success of Trump's wall?

Trump is keeping the Iran deal.

He also went back and pledged support for NATO.

Renegotiate NAFTA? No, another broken promise. He said he was going to get rid of it 100% to punish Mexico.

Also, he hasn't filled the US attorney positions.

Above is confirmed Trump failures so far which Trumps (pun intended) his imaginary successes

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Bass:

Instead of refuting the list of failures that I posted (meaning you probably had no defenses to offer), you decided to compile your own list of imaginary "successes." I then challenged your list, and the best you could do was offer empty rhetoric instead of actual, verifiable facts to support your views.

Yes, I want 4 conservatives a moderate and 4 liberals, perfect. We now have that missing conservative. Kudos!

That's just sad. The justices on the SCOTUS should be politically independent and neutral. Their job should be to simply to judge cases that are presented to them to be either constitutional or not--free of political bias. Wanting the court to have either a liberal or conservative majority stinks of partisan politics and goes against the spirit of checks and balances. The law should not be a political football--for anyone.

Executive orders that needed bipartisan support,

Please, name one of Trump's Executive Orders that got bipartisan support. Be specific.

If Democrats are willing to put Russia aside for just a moment and work for the American people, of course I would prefer it.

Take out the "Democrats" and "Russia" from the above statement and substitute them with "The GOP," "Benghazi" and other Republican witch hunts which came up empty, and the same thing could be said about the GOP's obstructive behavior during the eight years of the Obama Administration. Pot: meet the kettle.

Let's not forget that some of those 66 Executive Orders have been struck down by the courts, so I'd say that there is nothing to chirp about there.

Hmmm...not true, but ok, if you insist.

No, very true. Some of Trump's first Executive Orders have been struck down by the courts, or have you forgotten that? Please, read the article that we are commenting on again in case you need your memory jogged.

I can tell you don't follow the Stock market.

Wrong again. Thanks to President Obama's policies, my stocks nearly tripled by the end of his tenure, and they are still doing quite well. I have seen no significant change (positive or negative) to my investments (which hadn't been there before) since Trump has taken office. However, I asked you to specifically list legislation and policies that Trump has enacted to bring the stock market to such heights, and your provided zero evidence. As far as I could tell, your "proof" was a straw man ad hominem crack about the stock market--which proves nothing. Therefore, let's try this again: please list the actual Trump policies and legislation complete with verifiable links from credible sources that support your claim.

Lastly, FYI--I suggest you take a look at the link below to see just how the stock market has done under several administrations. Trump has a lot of work to do to equal his predecessor.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/2000-days-of-obama-how-have-stocks-done-2014-07-11

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Instead of refuting the list of failures that I posted

What failures?

That's just sad. The justices on the SCOTUS should be politically independent and neutral. 

They are. We have 4 liberal, 4 conservatives and 1 tie breaker or moderate, seems very fair to me.

Please, name one of Trump's Executive Orders that got bipartisan support. Be specific.

Doesn't need to have necessarily bipartisan support to be successful. Obama's biggest achievement (for the Democrats) was implementing Obamacare. Appointing Gorsurch was exceptionally huge for the GOP and conservatives.

Take out the "Democrats" and "Russia" from the above statement and substitute them with "The GOP," "Benghazi"

Yeah, but the difference is, Hillary, although not indicted was responsible for hiding her servers and deleting thousands of mails. Read the Podesta files and thanks to Comey that released the additional damaging info on her, it helped a lot to open up peoples eyes about the woman and thank God we dodged that bullet. She's far better off being a grandma and giving speeches.

No, very true. Some of Trump's first Executive Orders have been struck down by the courts, or have you forgotten that?

Not yet, but we still have 4 years, so let's just wait and see what happens.

Wrong again. Thanks to President Obama's policies, my stocks nearly tripled by the end of his tenure, and they are still doing quite well.

So let me get this straight, the market was unsure and investments for 8 years was at an all time low and then Trump becomes president, the market soars, there's confidence in the market, investments are going and it's all because of Obama???

Wow!!! ROFL! You're funnier than Dave Chapelle and that is hilarious!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

but we still have 4 years,

Four years of no wall or no Muslim ban (and even if it passes only 120 days ROFL!)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites