Article

2017-05-26 Home Front: WoT

US appeals court says Trump’s travel ban motivated by 'religious intolerance'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2017-05-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Who appointed this miscreants as royalty?

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-05-26 01:25|| 2017-05-26 01:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Except it only effected about 8 Muslim countries out of dozens. Ergo anyone with half a brain can understand it doesn't effect all Muslims. This is just the exercise of power under the guise of ritual. Long past ending life time appointments to our aristocracy, aka judiciary.

Posted by Procopius2k 2017-05-26 08:48|| 2017-05-26 08:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Even though there remains less than no evidence of any of that within the written travel moratorium, it would not be enough to override the law signed by Harry Truman 65 years ago. It gives the President broad sweeping powers over immigrants, PERIOD.
'When the President decides...'. It does not say that he must decide for a good reason or reason that the self appointed like, only that he decide. Whether they like it or not, religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination' are well within presidential authority. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't but it IS. This is not how you change the Law.

Posted by Cesare 2017-05-26 09:55|| 2017-05-26 09:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Makes one wonder if the lawyers on both sides are part of the 'deep state'.

Posted by Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-05-26 10:36|| 2017-05-26 10:36|| Front Page Top

#5 10 Dem, 3 Rep nominees

Posted by Frank G 2017-05-26 11:21|| 2017-05-26 11:21|| Front Page Top

#6 It would be a shame if concerned citizens got in the habit of having unscheduled "talks" with members of the judiciary that demonstrated they were risking our lives without the legal justification to do so.

Posted by Crusader 2017-05-26 11:54|| 2017-05-26 11:54|| Front Page Top

#7 10 more reasons why this shouldn't be a lifetime appointment and their needs to be a method for the people or the states under their circuit to recall their stupid asses.

Posted by DarthVader 2017-05-26 12:00|| 2017-05-26 12:00|| Front Page Top

#8 The same argument could have been used to nullify Obama's (but not Clinton's and GWB's) waivers of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Obama supported the notion of a Muslim Jerusalem in in Cairo speech by approvingly citing the Sura Al-Izra which states that the Muslim(!) prophets Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined peacefully in prayer in Jerusalem.

Also he committed the US government to a general defence of Islamic doctrine in his "The Future Must Not Belong ..." speech before the UN.

Applying the appeals court's standard Obama's waivers should have been null and void because they were political moves establishing a state religion.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2017-05-26 16:33|| 2017-05-26 16:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Just curious. How many court orders did Obama simply ingore (and the media said noting...)? I seem to recall a couple from that gulf oil spill alone.

Posted by CrazyFool 2017-05-26 20:39|| 2017-05-26 20:39|| Front Page Top

22:56 gorb
22:56 Grunter in Sydney
22:06 Anomalous Sources
21:19 ed in texas
21:00 Skidmark
20:39 CrazyFool
19:12 Skidmark
19:11 Skidmark
19:10 Skidmark
19:09 Skidmark
18:57 ed in texas
18:21 Zenobia Floger6220
18:12 magpie
18:09 magpie
18:07 Zenobia Floger6220
17:21 Sock Puppet of Doom
16:33 Elmerert Hupens2660
15:50 Frank G
15:48 DarthVader
15:44 Frank G
15:37 swksvolFF
15:37 Frank G
15:36 Iblis
15:35 Frank G