COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Trump tweets 'SEE YOU IN COURT' after appeals court refuses to reinstate travel ban

93 Comments
By SUDHIN THANAWALA

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

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

93 Comments
Login to comment

"See you in court."

Wasn't he just in court?

23 ( +24 / -1 )

Trump tantrum to begin in 3...2...1...

21 ( +25 / -4 )

people now wake up to trump's shouting every morning.

20 ( +22 / -2 )

@bass now the left won a temporary stay,

The left won? A court made a decision, which is part of their responsibility.

The above comment is yet another example of anti-Americanism from US neo-rightists. They continually try to undermine the American system claiming the current president needs more power. Do rightists honestly prefer a system like Turkey, Russia or North Korea where the leader, his family and a handful of oligarchs have control?

Why are US rightists so afraid? You have the largest and most frightening military the world has ever seen, and many of you have military level private arsenals. It must be terrible for you living in the US and being scared all the time.

20 ( +20 / -0 )

Just the kind of strong leadership the Trump voters wanted. You never saw Obama tweeting in all capitals.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

He really does reflect the new zeitgeist. Twitter, trolling, thin skinned. social media junkie exemplified.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

“THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

That's right Donnycakes, but not in the way that you imagine it to be. Lordy what an absolute omnishambles this man is.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

Oh my Trump is going to have a BIG Twitter tantrum is going to be hugeeee..

17 ( +20 / -3 )

The Supreme Court should rule the same. Trump will claim that these laws are needed to protect Americans. The court will ask to see specific evidence that these people are a threat that need to be stopped. Trump will say that he doesn't have anything.

Unless that changes, Trump fans might want to solidify the "activist judge" falsehood.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

He never loses in court...except when he does.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

@mt9334, no need to get testy. In America's wonderful system of checks and balances, a President's executive order does not need to be accepted as law forever, since if legal experts determine it is an unlawful order, they may challenge it in court all the way up to the Supreme Court. An EO gets an expedited review, which means the Supremes could hand Trump's shellshocked legal team their hineys within the first 1-2 months of his term. That would be an epic moment for the history books.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

The most overturned court of appeals, not surprised or shocking at all. See you at the Supreme Court.

Left wing courts that makes decisions based on the court of public appeal. These judges are looking for popularity. The pres should just write EO halting immigration from everywhere, then they can`t use the religion argument.

A judge's course: To become a lawyer, then a judge, you need to be the hardest studying pupil at school. You then need to earn a top university degree with distinction. After that you continue to study hard to pass the bar exam (high fail rate). Thats just the scholarly part. You then need to excel in your career as a lawyer and rank higher than your peers. You would have to show a flawless knowledge of the law. Only then would you be considered to be offered a position as judge where you have to prove transparency or risk losing your position.

Trump's course: You have to be born into money. There is no requirement to study hard at university and no requirement to understand law. You then inherit the family property business. You can run into bankruptcy and bail yourself out with money. You settle court cases outside of court with your money.

Now you tell me, who am I going to listen to when a judicial decision is made in court.?

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Just beautiful, so beautiful and GREAT!!

Hope he will loose the next round too!

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Tell me, is what the President of the United States signs into law, a Law?

If, yes...then the courts should enforce it. If, no...then please explain why not?

Executive orders cannot create laws they can only clarify or further them. In essence, it's an order on which laws resources should be applied.

The judicial branch serves as the determination on whether executive laws are order. They are one of the checks and balances of the American system.

The courts do enforce laws that are legal. If they are not legal, they repeal them.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

So you can peer into his mind?

We caught a glimpse yesterday:

Trump asked the assembled sheriffs if anyone wanted to “make a statement as to how we can bring about law enforcement in a very good civil lovely way, but we have to stop crime, right?”

one of the sheriffs flagged an issue (he had) up an unnamed state senator...

“Who's the state senator?” Trump asked. “Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,” he joked, to laughter from the law enforcement officials in the room.

This was in front of cameras: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCvaD_fwBCM

15 ( +15 / -0 )

"Why are US rightists so afraid? You have the largest and most frightening military the world has ever seen,"

"No, we had."

There is a perfect example of the nonsense some rightists believe.

You could sell left-handed hammers to this crowd.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

The Great Divider Twits Again.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

Trump's election slogan should really have been:- "we're going to make the Federal Courts and Court of Appeals great again!"

14 ( +14 / -0 )

The Biggest Cheese Doodle Loser lost again

14 ( +16 / -2 )

I'll bet more than likely the Supreme Court will rule in his favor

They won't.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Trump has got to control himself. It's a national security risk to America if he can be triggered and melt like a snowflake so easily. Russia and China will walk all over him. Even the Euro countries will probably make him look like a fool

14 ( +15 / -1 )

bass4funk: "He tweeted: "See you in court." 'Nuff said!"

True that! It speaks volumes of proof that your president is mentally unstable, childish, and unable to accept things that he does not agree with. It'll be turned down at the Supreme Court as well, and then what? He'll threaten and declare martial law? Hahaha. The man is not fit to be president, which is why more than 40% of hte nation now wants his impeachment. Of course, I have no doubt he'll threaten those on the Supreme Court before it goes there. He's a dictator in the making, after all.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Excellent, just excellent. Perfect response to a "so called" President.

Constitution 2 Trump 0

14 ( +14 / -0 )

@mt9334, to check the half baked ideas of Trump's inexperienced millenial staffers (e.g. Miller) before they do much harm.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Again, what is the responsibility and duty of the Judicial branch of Government in the U.S.?

To uphold and apply the law impartially regardless of attempts to exert political pressure or influence by persons trying to corrupt the system. In other words, exactly what they are doing now.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Trump said we will make America great again but he seems making America rather miserable than ever and no body look happy about recent happenings. That is Trump doesn't notice. He is really self-righteous. He will never get it.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

What Trump haters would like are "Leaders" that follow instructions from those being "Led". Leaders are either followed, or cease to be Leaders.

That's a misdiagnosis. We'd like a leader who has good ideas, makes sensible decisions, and is a unifier. It has nothing to do with following instructions from the populace, but a good leader will make decisions in line with what the populace wants, seeing as he is their representative and leader. Trump was voted in by less than 1/5 Americans, and is making his decisions and basing his actions on what that 20% of the population, not on what the people as a whole want. That's why he's hated.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Now you're afraid of Leftists?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Yes, Trump tweets, all in big shouty capitals, can someone please lead him to the soft-play area, get him away from his smartphone.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Trump thinks he is the "fuhrer" or leader of the USA. No he is the President and has to work within the US Constitution first, then US laws and lastly codified laws as regulations. Trump is a man child with small hands which indicates insecurity. He was spoiled as a child and bullied his way to his fortune. Sorry Trump that will not work as President. I received a second University Degree while in the US on leave of absence. I found it very informing about the US system of checks and balances. I was worried about Trump being elected but now think the US will be alright. I give him a few more months before his resigns or Article 25 of the US Constitution is imposed.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

On TV, don't they say normally 'See you in court!' to the other party, but this Twitter-head tweets it to the whole world!!

It gets more like those B-grade mad narcissistic lawyer character dramas like Boston Legal all the time.

Even Stone and Parker (ie. they make South Park) have said recently that they are running out of thinks to satire as real life is out running them (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2017/s4613479.htm)

10 ( +11 / -1 )

@SenseNSC This was in front of cameras:

That was frightening. People actually laughed when the president said 'We'll destroy his career'.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

You have the largest and most frightening military the world has ever seen,

No, we had.

US has a military larger than something like the next eight militaries combined. Right claims it's not the largest in the world anymore.

Post Truth™

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Back in 1992, one of the first things Bill Clinton did was fire every single federal judge, and appoint new ones in their place. Trump could have done the same, and then signed is executive orders after he had replaced the judges. But of course, if Trump had done the same thing Bill Clinton had done, there would have been mayhem.

There was no mayhem because Clinton never did it. He fired several US Attorneys, not Federal Judges. Federal judges have a lifetime appointment and can only by removed by the Senate (following impeachment by the House--same formula for removing the President).

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The statements of the court are completely and utterly cogent, something sorely lacking from the Idiot-in-Chief. Almost nothing said by The Chump makes any sense.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

almost everyone is still calling this a Muslim ban

Because it is.

Let the thumbs down begin

You won't be disappointed.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

There was no way the 9th circuit in San Francisco would rule in favor of the ban.

Agreed, but for different reasons.

It isn't some lefty conspiracy, the EO as written is unconstitutional. The 9th Cir. is acutely aware of the likelihood of appeal to the S. Ct. and, unlike the President and the AG, addressed the constitution questions. It is unlikely to be overturned.

There may be a different result at the Dist. Ct. level as that case is still ongoing. The Trump admin may miraculously produce evidence of a threat the EO is intended to address, but if they had that evidence, they would have already presented it.

Let's be serious, drafting and signing the EO was only political theater.

If it wasn't political theater, the EO would have been drafted correctly and constitutionally.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

which is true. Seriously, if you have in the US home grown terrorists with connections to Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq yet more terrorist acts have been committed on US soil by Saudi Arabia's citizens, which is also a muslim country, yet theyre not on the banned list! According to Trumps mentality, access to oil is more important than the safety of US citizens, the hypocrisy is thicker than molasses.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Left wing courts that makes decisions based on the court of public appeal.

Yes, on page 10 of the 29 page opinion, they cite some polls of lefty Californians to base their decision.

Unlike your assertion, this is a well written opinion based on law.

The 9th Cir. Ct. describes in detail the legal authority and duty to review executive decisions on matters of so-called national security. One example, is this citation to a Supreme Court decision: "Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty)”

"it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action." 9th Cir.

"The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above." 9th Cir.

"Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated." 9th Cir.

In a nutshell, Trump's lawyer failed every legal argument.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

MY EGO IS AT STAKE!

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Tell me, is what the President of the United States signs into law, a Law? If, yes...then the courts should enforce it. If, no...then please explain why not?

The courts shouldn't enforce it for two reasons.

First, there's this this pesky thing called the U.S. Constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a law.

Second, the courts' job is legal interpretation, not legal enforcement. You know whose job it is to enforce (not make) law? The U.S. President's job. According to the Constitution, the U.S. president has to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution". The courts are obligated to invalidate unconstitutional laws, and that's what they've done.

Why was the presidential order unconstitutional? It's all here:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5t3sj1/megathread_appeals_court_maintains_suspension_of/ddjxart/

8 ( +8 / -0 )

They will.

No they won't.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Left wing courts that makes decisions based on the court of public appeal. LOL and the same can be said for the supreme court if they decide in Trumps favour. "Right wing courts that makes decisions based on their political bias" whats next the Trump supporters will be crying "FAKE COURTS!!!" the circus that is the Trump regime gets funnier the day LOL

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@Sangetsu Back in 1992, one of the first things Bill Clinton did was fire every single federal judge

Fake news. @dmacleod is right. Read up on federal JUDGES who are different from federal ATTORNEYS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Tenure_and_salary

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The most ignorant moron ever to come within 1000 yards of the White House! Not surprising that he knew nothing about the workings of the American constitution before he came into office, but shouldn't it have occurred to him to study up a bit since then? Maybe he can get the podcast or 'talking book' version so he doesn't have to actually read anything. But if he continues tweeting while it plays, he will continue to learn nothing of course. No multitasker - even one simple task at a time is usually too much for his tiny intellect to handle.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yuri:

Trump is a sleep-deprived buffoon of very limited intellect. He hasn't yet noticed that words have meanings, and in his case they usually don't. It doesn't pay to examine his utterances too closely!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I am withholding comment on the legality of the travel ban as there is actually a law which does allow the President to do this, on the other hand the ban is being extended beyond the point where it can be argued that it is in conflict with the Constitution. The actual result of all this would legally probably be somewhere between both sides of the argument.

What I do continue to find very troubling is that the U.S. President tweets some of this crap on Twitter. This is very immature and is not useful when trying to negotiate or even challenge something.

This type of activity is the number 1 reason I cannot support Trump

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Trump tweets 'SEE YOU IN COURT'

They've been in court!

Unless he wasn't taking this seriously enough - they've been in court all along, and the decision was unanimous by judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents.

If Trump appeals this to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ends up in a 4-4 tie, then this Appellate Court decision becomes the final say on the matter - and thus establishes the precedent. (BTW, that's how Obama's immigration Executive Order was struck down - a 4-4 Supreme Court tie, thus leaving the lower court ruling against it. Trump may lead the same fate.)

But if Trump puts aside his ego for awhile, he can avoid setting a precedent. He can just swallow this defeat, void this hastily created Executive Order, and create a new Executive Order - but this time, have it first vetted by the Justice Dept, the Congress lawmakers, Homeland Security, etc. to make sure that it would pass Constitutional muster and challenges.

But can Trump learn to pick his fights, or would he risk it all setting a precedent that could be used against any and all his future immigration Executive Orders

“Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years,” the panel wrote.

Legal courts are still based on evidence. Trump has been trying to fight this in the Court of Public Opinion; yet if ya have ever sat in a legal court, the plaintiff and the defense both present arguments about their opinions of their own version of the events - but the judge always instructs that only those arguments that are supported by evidence would be considered, while those arguments that are not backed up by evidence would be disregarded.

The Trump White House did not or unable to provide evidence to support their arguments; thus the Appellate Judges unanimously ruled against such unsupported arguments. Legal courts are still evidence-based - ya can't just make an argument without evidence to show for it and expect it to be considered true in a legal court. The only arguments that can be considered true in a legal court must be supported by evidence that's presented.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

“SEE YOU IN COURT,”

Evidence of the mind of a puber at work.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Wow, the circus is still in town!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Keep up Serrano, in Krauthammer's latest Wapo column he rips Trump for bringing this case, calling it a "pointless cul-de-sac where even winning is losing" because it is low-priority grandstanding built on sketchy campaign promises.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

YuriOtani Still why did Trump say "I will see you in court?"

That is just tough guy talk.

Will Trump present evidence to the Supreme Court?

Facts are not really presented at the Supreme Court. If evidence needs to be considered, it is "remanded" or sent back to lower trial courts. So, really evidence (if any) will be presented at the district court level, and the district court will rule on the evidence, i.e., will allow the evidence.

The Supreme Court is focused on whether a law (or court ruling) is constitutional. They also rule in cases where there are differences in opinion amount the appellate courts. Many cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, but very few cases are heard.

Lawyers basically make constitutional arguments at the Supreme Court. Only lawyers may present arguments at the Supreme Court.

No Trump will not show up in any Court. He probably never showed up in court except when he was being deposed as a witness, e.g., the Trump University scams.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let's be serious, drafting and signing the EO was only political theater.

More precisely, Reality TV. With pre-broadcast Twitter ads by the leading actor.

MakeAirheadsGreatAgain
4 ( +4 / -0 )

Trump, supported by hostile foreign intelligence agencies, just lost to the constitution

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Imho, Trump really puts the 'Twit' into Twitter, which I thought had bern done already.

BTW, not an american and glad I am not.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So we should put security aside if the business numbers are good? I guess it wasn't much of a threst to begin with.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass4funkFEB. 10, 2017 - 08:58AM JST

He tweeted: "See you in court." 'Nuff said!

Not quite, as it appears they're wussing out of taking this to the Supreme Court:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/donald-trump-calls-travel-ban-verdict-disgraceful-having-vowed/

The White House official separately said: "We are actively considering changes or other executive orders that will keep our country safe from terrorism."

The official said: "The temporary restraining order, we would not take to the Supreme Court, but we are reviewing all options in the court system."

So much for "see you in court," eh?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Krauthammer: Court's decision on Trump's order 'disgraceful'

Oh my... Krauthammer: The Travel moratorium: A hopeless Disaster https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-travel-moratorium-a-hopeless-disaster/2017/02/09/53e3bdde-eef5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.3dcea7c2defc

"Stupid but legal"

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When you hear someone say "political activist judge" it's code for "I know more than judges know."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump to advisor: "Can we settle this thing?"

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This twit and his twitter.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Leftist" needs to be defined better. By some of the recent usage, former president Eisenhower would be consdered "leftist". Hmmm...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"They should be on the list, but we do a lot of business with the Saudis and they have been very instrumental in helping us weed out a lot of terrorists and their proxies. So I kind of understand why they wouldn't put them on the list, I don't agree, but I understand. With the Saudis, it's a catch 22 situation."

Thumbs up, Bass. At least you had a crack at it.

It still sounds like you're saying Trump's ban, now overturned, is a token gesture. You know the numbers.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In the politest words possible, THE COURT called Trump a fool, an idiot, and stupid, and he tweets "see you in court!"

He's a glutton for punishment. Yooj punishment

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One thing is confusing me, Trump has had his day in court. Why would he tell a judge, "I will see you in court?" The 9th appeals court is a court. Second if it goes to the Supreme court, I do not thing the judges from the 9th court will be there. My guy says if it goes to the Supreme Court the best Trump will get is a tie. Still why did Trump say "I will see you in court?" Will Trump present evidence to the Supreme Court?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So, in court, the executive wins: get ready for protests, etc.

Washington and Minnesota win: get ready for reaction and more protests.

Though none of this is surprising, it is surprising that it is all happening so soon. It may soon be time to wake up Mike Pence

Meanwhile, before it blows up again on or after the weekend, here is some Dryden satire from 350 years ago

SOME of their chiefs were princes of the land: In the first rank of these did [TRUMPI] stand, A man so various, that he seemed to be Not one, but all mankind’s epitome: Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong, Was everything by starts, and nothing long, But, in the course of one revolving moon, Was chemist, fiddler, statesman, and buffoon, ... Railing, and praising, were his usual themes; And both, to show his judgment, in extremes: So over-violent, or over-civil, That every man with him was god or devil.

(from http://www.bartleby.com/380/poem/370.html)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"If that be the case, then how do you explain the fact that around 50 other Muslim-majority countries are not affected by this travel restriction order?"

On a related issue, can you explain why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list? They have produced and sponsored more jihadis than Trump's imperfect seven combined. Do you know how the numbers?

Sorry to ask again, but no Trump supporter has given a convincing response. The best we've had is a "well....I'd like to see it on the list".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Then please explain it to me, bass. It sounds like your position is that the business side trump's the security side, but the security side is tantamount.

Serrano: If that be the case, then how do you explain the fact that around 50 other Muslim-majority countries are not affected by this travel restriction order?

You mean the ban doesn't impact countries where terrorists actually came from? Must be the classic Republican plan of inventing a problem then inventing a solution that doesn't even address the fake problem.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass: I already stated my point, also it's not ONLY Trump, leave the president out of this, the US has had a very long and complicated business agreement with the Saudis for years, not including the sale of oil to the US. You have to walk a fine line with them.

So we get their business and in exchange we don't ban their terrorists from traveling to our country. I'm surprised. I thought you were more on the security side of things, but it looks like some number of terrorists is actually acceptable in your eyes.

No, the problem is screaming apoplectic Democrats and liberals that think every person should be allowed to come in and take advantage of us, the country, our open borders and then when something happens, they are the first ones to complain about security. Ohhh, the liberal mind, all them veggies and not a lot to show.

I'm not your therapist. I simply made a point about how the GOP doesn't match it's solutions to the problems. The next thing I know you're unloading about why you hate liberals.

Yeah, Trump was trying to, but the libs blocked it and well, you know the rest.

You're accusing liberals of having some kind of say over Trump's executive order. You should probably get some sleep.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Trump was trying to

He's trying to put the judges in danger, literally

When a judge who helped derail President Donald Trump's travel ban was hit with online threats, the abuse raised safety concerns among jurists across the country, and experts are worried that the president's own attacks on the judiciary could make judges a more inviting target. (news quote)

Nice going Trump. Trump is a hateful man along with his voters. Now the judges are getting targeted and Trump and his followers are proud of that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the sycophant posters are already chasing their tails so hard in a single month that any credibility they had just becomes more inane.

Trump is threatening the judiciary, a court body, to court. This isn't a threat. His threats are against people who he's trolling where going to court would be a problem. But you can't troll a court by going to court. No wonder he loses all the time

He's already backed down but that's not the point. The people who heard his threat and chortled won't hear the followup report.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In the politest words possible, THE COURT called Trump a fool, an idiot, and stupid, and he tweets "see you in court!"

I rest my case.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@bass but not the strongest

Good on you for looking to support your argument. Good on you for using CNN. However, there's nothing in the articles saying the US military is not the strongest; strongest is your word. The writers are saying the military needs to be upgraded to be better equipped to fight present and future wars. That's their opinion.

The writers are part of the US military industrial complex; of course they're going to say the US needs to upgrade.

Nation, code for the coastal states again.

Another example of your anti-Americanism, claiming that only people who think like you can be Americans. The coastal states are part of the US, as are the flyover states and the US south. The US is a diverse nation; deal with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then please explain it to me, bass. It sounds like your position is that the business side trump's the security side, but the security side is tantamount.

I already stated my point, also it's not ONLY Trump, leave the president out of this, the US has had a very long and complicated business agreement with the Saudis for years, not including the sale of oil to the US. You have to walk a fine line with them.

You mean the ban doesn't impact countries where terrorists actually came from?

Yeah, Trump was trying to, but the libs blocked it and well, you know the rest.

Must be the classic Republican plan of inventing a problem then inventing a solution that doesn't even address the fake problem.

No, the problem is screaming apoplectic Democrats and liberals that think every person should be allowed to come in and take advantage of us, the country, our open borders and then when something happens, they are the first ones to complain about security. Ohhh, the liberal mind, all them veggies and not a lot to show.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why is the President even allowed to use social media while in power?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@dog,

If the courts are acting illegally then yeah he should write another. In the end, Trump is correct and the left wing courts are just looking to increase their popularity with the left wing community.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

On a related issue, can you explain why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list? They have produced and sponsored more jihadis than Trump's imperfect seven combined. Do you know how the numbers?

They should be on the list, but we do a lot of business with the Saudis and they have been very instrumental in helping us weed out a lot of terrorists and their proxies. So I kind of understand why they wouldn't put them on the list, I don't agree, but I understand. With the Saudis, it's a catch 22 situation.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Meanwhile isis is sneaking in

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So we should put security aside if the business numbers are good?

It's more complicated than that, but I wouldn't expect any civilian to understand that or liberal for that matter.

I guess it wasn't much of a threst to begin with.

Yeah, the left would say that.

It still sounds like you're saying Trump's ban, now overturned, is a token gesture. You know the numbers.

I'm not worried, just a matter of time before the ban goes back into affect.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Now you're afraid of Leftists?

No, I can't speak for others that are terrorized by them, all the more reason to go to the range and practice.

True that! It speaks volumes of proof that your president is mentally unstable, childish, and unable to accept things that he does not agree with.

You are are too, too hilarious! when I turn on the TV, read the paper and watch liberals have a complete and indescribable meltdown as if this is Armageddon the word Unstable is exactly what I call the unhinged desperate left. ROFL.

It'll be turned down at the Supreme Court as well, and then what?

Yeah, yeah, right....like you and all the other libs on JT kept squealing that when Obama was in office the GOP is done, never get elected to anything, kept winning gubernatorial races, won back the House, the Senate, the presidency, gained more legislative seats, said Trump would never run, be nominated, would never win. I'll say this, when it comes to Dems and libs making predictions, I would take it with a teeny tiny grain of salt. Anyway, I'll be happy when this gets overturned so that Trump can get back to business on this important issue.

He'll threaten and declare martial law? Hahaha.

Bro, the way the Anti-fascists and socialists are talking about assassinating Trump and wanting to create uncivil rest and loons like Rosie O'Donnel calling for Martial Law, it's the left that wants it. Poor libs, y'all need a shoot of some good old Wild Turkey to take the edge off.

The man is not fit to be president,

Obama wasn't either and yet, he served.

which is why more than 40% of hte nation now wants his impeachment.

Nation, code for the coastal states again. And by the way, stop with the polls, no one believes them anymore, the polls said, Trump would not, could EVER win, EVER! So whatever.....

Of course, I have no doubt he'll threaten those on the Supreme Court before it goes there. He's a dictator in the making, after all.

I think all of you guys on left need to stop watching all those Netflix and Hollyweird movies.....seriously!!!

US has a military larger than something like the next eight militaries combined. Right claims it's not the largest in the world anymore.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969979/US-military-depleted-Obama-no-longer-achieve-objective-able-fight-two-simultaneous-wars-report-claims.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/08/opinions/bradin-yoho-defense-department-culture-change/

These recommendations are necessary, but they do not address the heart of the problem identified by the authors: "With rising threats around the globe, and a military force diminishing in size, readiness, technological supremacy and some key capabilities, now is the time to make the major changes necessary to renew America's strength." To meet our future security needs effectively, we must include future investment in the discussion. Put simply, we have the best force for large, conventional theater operations,but not the best force for current and future conflicts. Precision weapons, nanotechnology, unmanned systems, autonomous systems, cyberweapons, the proliferation of night-vision devices, the prevalence of social media and small, flexible military and paramilitary formations have given political leaders an alternative to massing forces.

I know it's the largest, but not the strongest, that's what I mean by our military being degraded and rapidly.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Me: almost everyone ( in the MSM ) is still calling this a Muslim ban"

theeastisred: "Because it is."

If that be the case, then how do you explain the fact that around 50 other Muslim-majority countries are not affected by this travel restriction order?

Jordan fades back...

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

There was no way the 9th circuit in San Francisco would rule in favor of the ban; it is the most politicized of the circuit courts. And it is also the court which has the worst record of having it's rulings overturned by the Supreme Court.

The case will go to the Supreme Court, and the ban will very likely be upheld. In matters of immigration, the executive branch has great powers. There have been similar bans on a smaller scale enacted in the past, some against the very same countries named in Trump's ban.

Trump went about this rather in the wrong way. Back in 1992, one of the first things Bill Clinton did was fire every single federal judge, and appoint new ones in their place. Trump could have done the same, and then signed is executive orders after he had replaced the judges. But of course, if Trump had done the same thing Bill Clinton had done, there would have been mayhem.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Remind me again what is the proper place of the U.S. Judicial system?

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

What's disgraceful is putting the rights of immigrants before we the tax payers, before we the legal citizens & those who served to protect our rights. And since almost everyone is still calling this a Muslim ban even thought the vast majority of Muslims are unaffected by the order, Muslim religion is an ideology that conflicts with the Constitution itself such as lacking gender equality. Women and girls should not be slaves.

Oh my...

Krauthammer: Court's decision on Trump's order 'disgraceful' . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTMBrWdOS40

Let the thumbs down begin, lol

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

@Torafusu,

You responded, "... to check the half baked ideas of Trump's inexperienced millenial staffers (e.g. Miller) before they do much harm."

Tell me, do you usually respond with ridicule when confronted with a question of which you have no rational answer for?

Again, what is the responsibility and duty of the Judicial branch of Government in the U.S.?

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

The above comment is yet another example of anti-Americanism from US neo-rightists.

I'm now anti-American? Sorry, I'm anti-socialist and anti-fascist to the highest degree the left liberal loons perpetuate.

They continually try to undermine the American system claiming the current president needs more power.

It's like the left have a bad case of deja vu!

Why are US rightists so afraid? You have the largest and most frightening military the world has ever seen,

No, we had.

and many of you have military level private arsenals. It must be terrible for you living in the US and being scared all the time.

What's scary is going out on the streets and worrying about some leftist kicking the crap out of you for having a different opinion which doesn't perhaps coincide with a liberals warped worldview.

-20 ( +0 / -20 )

They won't.

They will. Yes, I agree and knew the 9th circus of appeals court would rule against but not in the Supreme Court. That would be like the 9th would rule on conservative cases in the future, never going to happen.

-22 ( +1 / -23 )

"To uphold and apply the law impartially ..."

Tell me, is what the President of the United States signs into law, a Law?

If, yes...then the courts should enforce it. If, no...then please explain why not?

-23 ( +0 / -23 )

Lot's of rhetoric against Trump...but HE IS THE PRESIDENT! And, a system is in place that gives rightful duties and obligations to each branch of Government.

Don't like Trump? So? I don't like Hillary...what do our "likes" have to do with the following of the Governmental system that is in place?

What Trump haters would like are "Leaders" that follow instructions from those being "Led". Leaders are either followed, or cease to be Leaders.

-26 ( +0 / -26 )

He tweeted: "See you in court." 'Nuff said!

-28 ( +1 / -29 )

Just the kind of strong leadership the Trump voters wanted. You never saw Obama tweeting in all capitals.

You never really saw Obama doing anything truthfully speaking.

The Supreme Court should rule the same.

I'll bet more than likely the Supreme Court will rule in his favor, for now the left won a temporary stay, but once it gets to the Supreme Court, Trump should prevail, as I said before, not surprised that the most liberal body of court would rule like this, it's ok, Trump has time on his side.

Trump will claim that these laws are needed to protect Americans.

Which is true. Seriously, if you have in the US home grown terrorists with connections to Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq, I don't think vetting people for an extra 30 or 90 days is going to hurt anyone, inconvenient, probably, but so what? If it was a straight and outright ban or block, ok, but that's not the case.

The court will ask to see specific evidence that these people are a threat that need to be stopped. Trump will say that he doesn't have anything.

So you can peer into his mind? If you say that, then the powers and discretion that are given to the president to unilaterally block people from entering the country should be upheld since he is endowed with those powers, if it goes a 4-4 tie, I'm sure that Gorsuch will be the deciding tie breaker and that should put it all to rest after that.

Unless that changes, Trump fans might want to solidify the "activist judge" falsehood.

Oh, you think? One thing I tell you, keep watching the TV and please tell me how many Trump supporters you see turning over cars, beating up people, destroying public property and losing their minds and committing acts of violence over this bad ruling. While you search, I'll be waiting, in the meantime gotta get my honey nut Cheerios.

-30 ( +0 / -30 )

The most overturned court of appeals, not surprised or shocking at all. See you at the Supreme Court.

-31 ( +1 / -32 )

Left wing courts that makes decisions based on the court of public appeal. These judges are looking for popularity. The pres should just write EO halting immigration from everywhere, then they can`t use the religion argument.

-32 ( +0 / -32 )

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