Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it interesting that one of the justices (Ginsberg?) asked if some future anti-semitic president wanted to exclude Jews from immigrating, or not allowing immigrants from Israel from immigrating, would that not be equivalent to an Executive Order from a president that vocally called for a "Muslim ban".
 
Blue Mountain said:
How could such a volatile person get as high as he did in the military and then remain in an important position for decade? .
Click to expand...
You appear to be unfamiliar with the US Military. The Peter Principle does not apply. Being an ******* is the road to promotion. It's only being an INCOMPETENT ******* that will leave you stuck at E-6 or O-4. Or POTUS, of course.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I thought it interesting that one of the justices (Ginsberg?) asked if some future anti-semitic president wanted to exclude Jews from immigrating, or not allowing immigrants from Israel from immigrating, would that not be equivalent to an Executive Order from a president that vocally called for a "Muslim ban".
Click to expand...

Once again, that has nothing to do with what this is about. This is the opposition introducing this line to get an advantage.
 
logger said:
That is not even close to being what this is about. The left has tried to make the focus on that and it’s completely, as usual, dishonest. And it wouldn’t be about race, it would be about bigotry. Which in itself is so unbelievably ridiculous. This is more proof of judges making law.


Show me?
Click to expand...

The argument is in at least two places

ENNEDY: If -- if you have that extreme hypothetical, would that present a free exercise or an Establishment Clause claim or both? GENERAL FRANCISCO: It could definitely present a free exercise clause challenge, Your Honor, just as you had a free speech type claim in the Mandel case. And there would be people who could bring that claim and who could potentially succeed on that claim.
Click to expand...

L FRANCISCO: Sure. And I have two responses to that, Your Honor. The first is that the President's cabinet, just like all of us here, is duty-bound to protect and defend the Constitution. So I would expect that if any cabinet member were given that order, that cabinet member would refuse to comply or resign in the face of a plainly unconstitutional order. So I think that would be the initial check. Secondly, if you had an extreme scenario where all of that broke down, then, if the President actually did make that statement -- I want to keep out a particular race or a particular religion, no matter what -- that would undermine the facial legitimacy of the action, even under the Mandel standard.
Click to expand...
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Maybe.

But let's get you on the record...

...are you in favor of bans on religious grounds?

That's what Trump campaigned on and has stated that's what his bans were intended to do.

Would a Jew ban be OK as well?
Click to expand...

What if Islam is banned?
What if a situation comes about and it needs to be dealt with? The president still has the sole discretion to do that. Whether it’s terrorists, religious extremism or whatever else. He is elected by the people to make these decisions, not the ****** courts.
 
logger said:
What if Islam is banned?
What if a situation comes about and it needs to be dealt with? The president still has the sole discretion to do that. Whether it’s terrorists, religious extremism or whatever else. He is elected by the people to make these decisions, not the ****** courts.
Click to expand...

You're answering a question with a question. Actually 2.

You sound like KellyAnne.
 
logger said:
What if Islam is banned?
What if a situation comes about and it needs to be dealt with? The president still has the sole discretion to do that. Whether it’s terrorists, religious extremism or whatever else. He is elected by the people to make these decisions, not the ****** courts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, are you suggesting the president can ban Islam?
 
Well, until Christian Sharia. The far right thinks that's fine and dandy. More rights for the 'right wing' to attempt to strip.
 
All the speculation when Trump can't pronounce words like the United States and smacks his lips, now we find out the WH doc passes out percocet and ambien to the staff.

He may not drink but I think we have more evidence that doesn't mean he doesn't take a certain number of drugs.
 
logger said:
The left hates this country, which is why they’re constantly trying to change it.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? I mean honestly, it's an extreme exaggeration, right? Certainly you cannot claim pols like Warren, Obama, Biden, Feinstein, and on and on and on "hate" their country.

I'd like a straight answer without any BS attached. Are you serious when you say, "The left hates this country..."
 
logger said:
All I want them to do is interpret the constitution as our founders intended.

Do you think that is extreme?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's extreme without evaluating questions such as:
  1. Would they approve of the nation having US military stationed at almnost 1000 bases around the world
  2. Would they approve a banning immigration based on religion?
  3. Would they consider marijuana legal? Opium? Heroin?
  4. Would they think money is free speech?
  5. Would they approve of the US owning territories thousands of miles away from the Atlantic seaboard?
  6. What was their stance on abortion?
  7. Did they found the nation on biblical principles?
  8. Would they approve of political PACs with no accountability?
  9. What was their stance on concealed carry?
  10. Woud they approve of women being able to vote?
  11. Would they approve of the Negro having the ability to vote?
  12. What was their stand on monopolies?
  13. Would they approve of the US establishing and running natonal parks?

That ought to get us started, no? Again, please no grandiose hand-waving. Give straight answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom