Trump says courts too political; no travel ban ruling yet

its called the separation of powers at the core of the democratic process Donald - get used to it.... it's the same system you were elected under....

Just as I expected. Folks on all sides need to stop worrying so damn much about what Trump tweets or says about anything really. The American system, while having many faults and far from perfect, does work when it comes to issues like this, and it matters ZERO what Trump says.

That all American institutions have more than their respective shares of problems has long been true. And it's equally true that all American institutions need to be challenged.

What's worrying with Trump (and his loyalists) is he is doing his best to undermine American institutions, especially any like the judiciary that might have the checks and balances possibly limiting his aims. Take away checks and balances and the president can become a - what's that kind of leader called?

I can see how Trump appeals to nihilists who want to tear things down for the sake of tearing them down, and also to Jihadists (and their American counterpart yahoodists), Russians and the Chinese who want to see the US implode. Maybe Trump is the political messiah for anti-Americans everywhere?

And so it begins - the authoritarians banding together to turn public opinion against the institution of our government which protects the Constitution. This is truly a frightening party line. Trump tries to delegitimize the judiciary and so many people are falling in line. Judges bad, press bad. People, this is fascism. Wake up America before America is gone.

The courts are "political" while it is he who exhibits the superior "common sense". I wonder if he really doesn't understand constitutional democracy at all or whether he is simply a dangerous Mussolini type who believes all the institutions should be subsumed to the power he holds. I guess the latter is becoming more clear. It's kind of interesting but terrifying to see the denial. I wonder how far he has to go to shake off the erstwhile supporters who still believe in constitutional democracy.

The real danger is his empty headed followers repeating his statements without realizing they are being taken for a ride. Some will be along shortly.

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased. So I won’t call it biased." This is just a way to say that he thinks the court is biased.

"Too much politics in the U.S. judiciary." Not at all. Just not his beliefs. If anything, the court is trying to come to a fair decision that excludes both political and religious beliefs, which I don't ever want to call Trump's prejudice.

Trump says courts too political; no travel ban ruling yet

No kidding Donald! Politics is the reason why both political parties have been waging political jihad against one another to put their carefully screened partisans on the bench for decades. The more power the government accumulates the higher the stakes in the courts' decisions. Until Americans wise up and send power back to the states the tribalism will only continue to intensify.

He signed for being a president and realized he cannot be a dictator, welcome to the democracy.

And so it begins - the authoritarians banding together to turn public opinion against the institution of our government which protects the Constitution. This is truly a frightening party line.

It always amuses me how the left come unhinged and worry about the constitution, but when their former president stepped all over it at times, not a single peep out of the left.

Trump tries to delegitimize the judiciary and so many people are falling in line.

I will submit to you, he shouldn't do it and it's petty, on the other hand the left should in turn do the same and try not to delegitimize this president, but I know the left only cares about ideology and not the welfare of the country.

Judges bad, press bad. People, this is fascism. Wake up America before America is gone.

It left us 8 years ago, we're trying to get it back, but a little help from the left would be appreciative.

SuperLibFEB. 09, 2017 - 09:07AM JST

I thought you were done talking about Obama.

Of course not. Every time there's any bad news about Trump, we'll be guaranteed to get "But Obama did this, and the Democrats did that, and liberals... etc etc etc" until it's even more boring to read than it is already.

But there is cause for hope. Bass has joined everyone else in condemning Trump's attack on Nordstrom's (real news despite seeming to emanate from the pages of The Onion). I can see net thumbs up in Bass's near future.

It always amuses me how the left come unhinged and worry about the constitution, but when their former president stepped all over it at times, not a single peep out of the left.

Can't 'peep' about something that never happened.

Well actually trump and bass do it all the time, so I guess you can.

I stand corrected by myself.

"I was a good student. I understand things. I comprehend very well. OK? Better than, I think, almost anyone"

The terrifying thing is there are people out there who'd believe this.

But there is cause for hope. Bass has joined everyone else in condemning Trump's attack on Nordstrom's (real news despite seeming to emanate from the pages of The Onion). I can see net thumbs up in Bass's near future.

I couldn't stop laughing at this. Thanks, as I have been saying and I know the left are incredibly hard of hearing, but I'm not and never have been unfair or a partisan, I just call it as I see it.

Can't 'peep' about something that never happened.

Oh, yeah it did. Let me know when you want a list,

Well actually trump and bass do it all the time, so I guess you can.

I'm not a politician, so there goes that argument....

I stand corrected by myself.

"I couldn't stop laughing at this. Thanks, as I have been saying and I know the left are incredibly hard of hearing, but I'm not and never have been unfair or a partisan, I just call it as I see it."

Saying all liberals are completely devoid of morals is fair and non-partisan? I think you also once compared them to cockroaches.

We all all non-partisan here.

Welcome to the United Hates of Amerika (not).

Saying all liberals are completely devoid of morals is fair and non-partisan?

"All?" No, not all, of course not! But some, "Yes."

I think you also once compared them to cockroaches.

The established Democrats and libs in Washington, Yes, that sounds about right.

Trump is right. The judges are deciding on this travel ban using their personal feelings and for popularity. Just answer the question: Does the Presidents have the authority to halt any kind of immigration at any time? Yes he does.

The courts are too political in my opinion. Read the law, understand the law, make your decision if what you are reviewing meets the law or not, then move on. This should definitely be a decision that can be made before lunch if it is briefed at 9am.

The reason it is taking so long is because the political part of it is also being weighed into the decision by the judges. How will people feeeeel about it? How will I be viewed by others once I make this decision? Things that have nothing to do with the LAW.

If the law doesnt mention intent, dont review intent. If the law says all, then that means no exceptions. If the law says its the choice of the President, then he chooses. Its that simple.

Does the Presidents have the authority to halt any kind of immigration at any time? Yes he does.

If Democrat Obama does it then it's legal. When a Republican Trump does it, it's not. That is the American justice system. The law is subservient to the political war.

He has a point though, the Supreme Court is one of the most farcical things I've ever seen. SC judges shouldn't be appointed by damn parties, that is about as stupid a thing I've seen

Just answer the question: Does the Presidents have the authority to halt any kind of immigration at any time? Yes he does.

A judge says that the president doesn't have that absolute authority. And the judge's decision is literally the law, unlike your opinion.

If Democrat Obama does it then it's legal. When a Republican Trump does it, it's not.

The difference being Obama never halted immigration. That's fake news being spread by the right.

Seems pretty clear to me:

Furthermore, the case law to date, while limited, “also supports the view that this provision of the INA confers broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens.” A 1993 ruling on the topic by the U.S. Supreme Court favored the president’s authority. The U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled in 1996 that “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

But you're not a judge, are you. A judge's decision is literally law.

Illegal aliens don't fall under the constitution simple as that. I am tired of people saying it's a muslim ban because if it were then why is saudia arabia allowed into our country and some other muslim nations. If thats the case obama banned muslims for 6 months so whats 90 days. I'm betting right now isis is sneaking in as many terrorists as they can right now and after a huge attack you will hear i told you so

I am tired of people saying it's a muslim ban because if it were then why is saudia arabia allowed into our country and some other muslim nations.

Because an executive order can only further existing laws, it cannot create new laws. There were no existing laws regarding Saudi Arabia that could have been used in the executive order.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that Trump himself said he wanted to ban Muslims, and when he actually did it, his Trumpians want to pretend he's not doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Post Truth™

obama banned muslims for 6 months

Fake news. Never happened.

No, the law is the law. A judges decision is based on how they personally interpret the existing law. More and more this interpretation is based on the current political climate and what is politically correct at the time. The original judge is obviously well versed on Black Lives Matter and such, because he mentioned it from the bench in a ruling in another case. This is why we have laws, so that judges cant just make their own laws in the court room.

They are only supposed to be looking at the law as written and deciding based on that. It matters not that Trump said or didnt say that he wanted a Muslim ban, what is written in the Executive Order? Too many judges are trying to gather evidence that is irrelevant and make their own laws based on how they feeeeel about the issue. The feeeels should only come in to play in criminal cases in the sentencing phase, not in the determination of guilt phase.

A judges decision is based on how they personally interpret the existing law.

Yep, and that decision becomes precedent, which is law.

Too many judges are trying to gather evidence that is irrelevant and make their own laws based on how they feeeeel about the issue.

They have to base their decisions on the law.

I wonder how people feel about Citizens United vs. the People... This court ruling is opposed by over 70% of Americans.

The issue keeps being brought back to individual people and their situations and how sad that is. Poor kid cant get heart transplant, couple cant get married, guy cant see sick Mom, baby born without father present. Trying to get people in the feeeels.

The law shouldnt be based on any of the emotion of people and their situations, the law is emotionless and black and white. It is simply that the countries involved are either active state supporters of terrorism or places that dont have a framework in place to help the USA identify who people are. Cant leave the security of the US up to another country. Prime example, it is being reported that Venezuela just gave passports and visas to people with terrorism ties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/08/world/venezuela-passports-investigation/index.html

Cant leave the security of the US up to another country.

So banning a bunch of refugees escaping terrorism, and people from a bunch of countries that have never attacked America is the solution?

Bewildering.

I'm guessing the majority of JT posters will not admit that the following report is correct. In fact, most of them won't even bother watching it, lol.

Stephen Miller: Travel ban is lawful and necessary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns0JdlYKz14

Refugees are also bringing terrorism, not only escaping it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/

I dont see why these protestors are so insistent that people from other countries have a right to come in to the USA before it is even know if they are escaping it or bringing it. Plus, once the refugees are here, the protestors want nothing to do with housing them or supporting them, they expect the government to handle all that.

@Serrano, Stephen Miller, the 31 year old (millenial!) architect of this failing flop of an immigration policy, still spouting the same drivel he was remembered for by his classmates at LA's Santa Monica High School? When are you going to share videos of real intellectual heavy hitters like that deaf guy who does the political rants in Florida?

A vetted refugee. Its obvious that the vetting process needs to be examined to prevent this from happening again.

https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/10/24/the-refugee-and-asylum-crisis-vetted-iraqi-refugee-pleads-guilty-to-supporting-isis/

The USA has been lucky so far, that things like the Kentucky plot and this were stopped before any action could be taken. People saying, well that country never attacked US. I say well not yet and we shouldnt help them to have an opportunity.

My neighbors havent walked into my house uninvited, but I still lock my door anyway to prevent it.

pointofviewFEB. 09, 2017 - 11:07AM JST

Trump is right.

Is he? Even his own Supreme Court nominee is calling his attacks on the judiciary “disheartening and demoralizing”.

Bass: I will submit to you, he shouldn't do it and it's petty, on the other hand the left should in turn do the same and try not to delegitimize this president,

Pres. Trump: I was a good student. I understand things. I comprehend very well. OK? Better than, I think, almost anybody.

The man delegitimizes himself with every tweet or conversation, whether it is a bald face lie or narcissistic like the above tweet.

He comprehends things better than almost anyone. That is so absurd, I would laugh in someone's face if they told me that, but it is coming from a guy who is supposed to act like a president.

Then there are his policies, appointing an ancient old racist as the AG, appointing a ditsy religious zealot to Sec Ed who wants to tear apart public education in exchange for fly by night religious charter schools, Bannon a political szar to the NSC where we can expect blood to be spilled for explicit political gains, walls, border taxes, constitutionally questionable challenges to the judiciary and media, removing banking regs that protect the public, environment denier, etc.

I want to like the guy and hope he will be good for the country, but nothing and I do mean nothing to date makes me feel good about him as the President.

This is all just some bizarre new American political comedy reality show I'm sure. I can't bring myself to admit that the loons in this new administration aren't scripted characters made up by Ricky Gervais or someone. Surely these people can't actually be so imbecilic? It's all so bewildering (but hugely entertaining) for those of us not directly involved.

when some radical islamist detonates a bomb. Trump will say "told you so".

Tora: "Serrano, Stephen Miller, the 31 year old (millenial!) architect of this failing flop of an immigration policy, still spouting the same drivel he was remembered for by his classmates at LA's Santa Monica High School?"

I was right. Even though what Stephen Miller said here was correct, you refuse to acknowledge it.

when some radical islamist detonates a bomb. Trump will say "told you so".

Well, bobsap, let's hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the president and common sense and reinstates the temporary travel restriction so we won't have some radical Islamist detonating a bomb here.

when some radical islamist detonates a bomb. Trump will say "told you so".

And you guys will ignore the tens of thousands of innocent refugees who did nothing, because they haven't said 'I told you not'.

@BlacklabelFEB. 09, 2017 - 12:35PM JST

No, the law is the law. A judges decision is based on how they personally interpret the existing law

Since we are talking the US, we are talking a common law system. Pure common law has been dead for awhile with increasing codification, but the judge's decision is NOT only based on interpreting legislated statutes, but also on "case law" - previous judgments that are also doctrinally valid as sources of law.

They are only supposed to be looking at the law as written and deciding based on that. It matters not that Trump said or didnt say that he wanted a Muslim ban, what is written in the Executive Order?

Whether we play this game Common Law or Civil Law style, whether Trump said somewhere he wanted a "Muslim ban" is very important as a matter of fact. If we read only that law, he is allowed to do it only if he "finds" certain conditions ... a finding, by ordinary definiton, is both objective and subjective. The finding must be based on at least some factual basis and further, the finder must believe it to be accurate. If his mental state is somewhere else, then that's just abuse of power.

and when that terrorist blows up your nearest & dearest who just happened to be standing nearby minding their own business maybe you'll come to your senses.

Amazing how an unelected judge gets to remake the immigration laws and policies for the entire country.

Amazing how an unelected judge gets to remake the immigration laws and policies for the entire country.

You mean a judge who was chosen by a bipartisan vote during the Bush administration without opposition from either party?

And election of judges is one of the most ridiculous concepts of American law there is. Judges shouldn't be making judgements based on getting re-elected, they should be making judgements based on the law.

Your entire premise is broken.

@serrano Amazing how an unelected judge gets to remake the immigration laws and policies for the entire country.

It's an American way. I've asked this question several times, but why is it modern American rightists are the most anti-American of the numerous anti-American groups? You sound like you hate your country and would prefer a North Korea type system of government with a strong dictator telling you what to do.

The US has the biggest and most powerful military history has ever seen and you're still afraid? You've got all those private weapons and you're still afraid? 90 of your fellow Americans are killed each day by those guns. And you're more worried about refugees? How many refugees killed an American last year? How many gun carrying Americans killed an American last year?

The problem is that we have a president who relies on lies to make his judgments, and is out of touch with reality. The courts need to step in, when the president is out of his mind.

Amazing how an unelected judge gets to remake the immigration laws and policies for the entire country.

All the US Supreme Court Justices are unelected - all of them are appointed by Presidents, with the approval of the Senate (that's not an election)

No judge has the right to override the president

Never read your constitution apparently.

Well trump has started creating public sector jobs: http://www.theonion.com/article/secret-service-adds-emotional-protection-division--55263

Fake news. Never happened.

Pardon me? Yeah, it did.

But why was the Left silent when the Obama administration refused to issue visas to Iraqis for six months?

The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints...

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.

This is one of the rare occasions where I thought Obama did the right thing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/muslim-ban-hypocrisy-left-said-nothing-when-obama-also-halted-visas/news-story/17c901096824ecd0a2e3a4d1e5ded377

Pardon me? Yeah, it did.

Nope. Fake news.

The arrests caused an uproar in Congress, and the Obama administration pledged to reexamine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq War.

“The enhanced screening procedures have caused a logjam in regular visa admissions from Iraq, even for those who risked their lives to aid American troops and who now fear reprisals as the Obama administration winds down the U.S. military presence,” the Baltimore Sun reported.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer denied that any ban in Iraqi refugee admissions was put in place under Obama. “While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” he wrote in Foreign Policy. “In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/

The Obama administration never banned Iraqis. They added new checks in place that slowed down applications and caused a log jam.

But the right reports the fake news that the Obama administration banned Iraqis/Muslims. Never happened.

Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals,

I see, so now liberals are calling the 6 month ban a delay. Too funny. Liberals love euphemisms, I keep forgetting that. Ok, they call it what they want, if that helps them sleep at night.

https://youtu.be/XbCixVoldDM

I see, so now liberals are calling the 6 month ban a delay.

Nope, unlike those spreading the fake news, we're calling the delay a delay. You guys are spreading fake news and making up a ban that never existed.

Nope, unlike those spreading the fake news, we're calling the delay a delay.

No, it was the truth, it's out there. Denying that is like saying California is a conservative State or liberals are church going people. I wasn't listening to the news, but I can read what came out of the administrations mouths and you know there are WH transcripts as well. That's what I go by, unless the WH was lying, but they did that all the time as well.

But I applaud Obama for doing something once decent as a president and Trump should be credited equally being so cautious.

No, it was the truth, it's out there.

No it's not. I looked. No ban exists.

you know there are WH transcripts as well.

Yes, white house transcripts exist for many things. But none that show a ban.

That's what I go by,

No, you're going by fake news.

No it's not. I looked. No ban exists.

I looked at the transcripts it did or was the White House lying again?

Yes, white house transcripts exist for many things. But none that show a ban.

They did or was it the illuminati pulling the strings and altered the video?

No, you're going by fake news.

The are swimming in a cesspool of fake news.

I looked at the transcripts it did

Nope. You must have looked at some other transcripts.

They did

Nope, they don't.

The are swimming in a cesspool of fake news.

You keep spreading fake news.

No, I looked at the transcripts from the White House, there is only one WH if I'm not mistaken.

Nope, they don't.

Sure, he did. I remember. Just like the sun rises and the tide flows in and out.

You keep spreading fake news.

Not my news, just THE NEWS.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/