>One of the lead attorneys on a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s travel ban welcomed the president’s "help" Monday morning in the pending case.
>"Its kinda odd to have the defendant in HawaiivTrump acting as our co-counsel.We don't need the help but will take it!"
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What level of chess is this, Trumpcucks?
Other urls found in this thread:
law.cornell.edu
law.cornell.edu
twitter.com
Trump literally just said what he's been saying the entire time.
You know that analogy to the Christian-Athiest debate where a chess-playing pigeon just shits all over the board and declared itself the winner? It's that level of chess. It's always been that level of chess. He's either going senile or was always retarded. The only possible sane explanation for this is that he knows he's going to lose (as he should, because it's a shit executive order) and he's fortifying his loss with excuses and rationales meant to demonized the court system.
Because, you know, that's exactly what America needs. A broken government where the branches hate and openly disrespect each other.
absolutely euphoric
Yeah! He should have bent over and taken it in the ass from the judicial branch like all the past presidents, surely that would have worked this time. I mean look how well progressive London is doing - they're up to almost a terrorist attack a day but nobody can call them racist!. Drumpf absolutely btfo, let all the muslims in now!
Kek
Now that he has his cabinet he can ban whoever he wants.
>shitskin
>He's either going senile or was always retarded.
I'll go with a combination of the two.
I don't get it. How does this hurt Trump? He's not saying anything here he hasn't said repeatedly before.
No, he should have formed a proper plan and created an executive order that could stand up in court. He didn't. He shit all over a piece of paper with Bannon and threw it at the courts knowing it would never hold up. The error here is entirely with the Trump administration because what they are trying to do is illegal.
The stupidest part for them is that there are ways to make it legal. Thousands of ways. The easiest way would be to craft a specific course of action for each country of concern that addresses the problems with that particular country. But instead he went for a blanket ban across all the Muslim countries he doesn't do business with. The liberals have been dragging him over the coals for weeks because he doesn't have the talent to properly execute this idea. The courts are doing their job and rightfully pointing out that his current draft of the ban violates US law because it does.
London is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Making baseless emotional appeals like that doesn't help your case.
>reddit spacing
>thinks the thousands of ways to make it legal matter at all when faced with a jewish judge.
>only thing he needs is to sway 1 judge in the SC. Right now only 2 judges will support his decision.
when trump wins the scotus ruling i will be posting this picture with the phrasing "this tweet aged well." you will run away from the post in furious anger
the "judges" that have ruled so far have said this is constitutional if written by anyone else, but since trump said stuff it is no longer constitutional. yes, that is not actual law.
It's not reddit spacing you fucking newfag. That's how people write it paragraphs. It's the English language and it's how people have been posting on every imageboard and messageboard across the internet since before you were just a baby sperm swimming around in your moms butthole.
The fact that the judge is Jewish only matters in your paranoid little mind. The ban has failed in court multiple times because it is poorly constructed, not because the judge is Jewish.
What the fuck is reddit spacing? Paragraphs?
The problem is they would reject it and call it illegal no matter how he submits it. Their goal is more muslims and they'll do anything in their power to make it happen, hence the quip about London.
13th dimensional string theory quantum gravitation dark energy solved backgammon.
He is playing them for fools. The travel ban was always supposed to fail. It's a shock and awe tactic by Bannon/Trump. When the next attack hits the US Trump will be guaranteed reelection. If everything goes to plan Democrats won't be reelected for another generation
Nothing but baseless paranoia. Their goal is not more Muslims. London is still irrelevant. Like I said, there are a lot of ways to get it passed. Previous presidents have been able to pass similar laws.
If the problem was just his campaign rhetoric, which is isnt, then he could simply have a congressman craft the bill to remove himself from the process. Intent does matter in the courts though, so the fact that his idiotic anti-Muslim rams are causing him trouble now should not come as a surprise. It matters whether you like it or not.
>Katyal was born in the United States on March 12, 1970, to Indian immigrant parents. His mother is a pediatrician and his father, who died in 2005, was an engineer. Katyal's sister is also an attorney, who currently teaches law at University of California, Berkeley School of Law. He studied at Loyola Academy, a Jesuit Catholic school in Wilmette, Illinois.
>Katyal has been married to Joanna (((Rosen))), an internist, since 2011.[27] His brother-in-law is Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University and legal affairs editor of The New Republic.[28] His sister is the Chancellor's Professor of Law and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at UC Berkeley.
kys reddit cancer your paragraphs are shit tier
Juding intent on executive orders sets a very horrible precedent where any EO can be stopped simply due to the feelings of a judge, not an objective breaking of the law.
That IS exactly what America needs. It's better for the government to be unable to cooperate then to work together and fuck us over. One spanned in the work can bride the whole fucking operation to a halt.
What a well-constructed argument. You should seek employment writing executive orders.
If you don't understand Trumps trolling methodology yet there's no hope for you. Find a nice home where adults can care for you because you are a retard. Or liberal. Take your pick.
Isn't chess haram? I'm reporting your post to the lander sharia council.
>not having a 10000x10 widescreen monitor, that makes all paragraphs looks like reddit spacing.
also why is travel ban illegal again?
you like like a libtard, let me help ya out pal.
1. courts never take into account campaign rhetoric
2. even if they did, the EO is constitutional
3. the courts never quoted the ACTUAL LAW WRITTEN, only their opinions
4. when cases go to the SC from the 9th district, over 80% turned over
5. everything the judges have done are 100% politically motivated which is the ONE thing they should never get into
Because he stated in his campaign speeches that the intent was to discriminate against Muslims. That makes it illegal because religious discrimination is illegal and the ban makes no serious effort to show any other motive. That's why he should break it down into a series of country-by-country bans with each focusing on the specific needs of that country. Right now it is a Muslim ban, and whether or not you like it that is illegal.
Underrated post
Let's start Photoshoping isis dude's with lei's on. We can help Hawaii with generating more tourism
It's not.
law.cornell.edu
>Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
>muh feelings
>muh discrimination
>muh muslim ban (even though 90% of muslims arent banned)
you're hitting all the talking points!
have a look at the fucking language of the executive order
I can see this rat's hook nose even from his tiny twitter pic.
Fucking kikes
Sober up buddy. It's hard to read your gibberish.
(1) Yes they do. All US courts consider motivation for actions when deciding a ruling. That is true in criminal and civil cases as well as larger cases such as this.
(2) It is not constitutional.
(3) That is not unusual. You say "Their opinions" like it is just a fickle uninformed passing notion but a judges opinion is based in decades of legal study. They hold merit.
(4) Okay.
(5) No.
It's not:
>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Doesn't matter if you think it's feeling based. Religious discrimination is not allowed as motivation for legislation. That's the law.
He has to show that it's detrimental and that his ban will address the problem. That is what he is failing to do.
"sober up" kek
>ad hominem attacks
>typical liberals
Cornell probably got the website wrong right???
law.cornell.edu
>(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
where does it say he must show proof?? am i missing a section of the law????
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental"
It doesn't say "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental and must provide proof of detrimental effects"
>He has to show that it's detrimental
No, it just has to be detrimental in his opinion.
>and that his ban will address the problem.
The law doesn't require that.
>Religious discrimination is not allowed as motivation for legislation. That's the law.
Which law?
Muslim isn't a religion, Islam is. Islamic nations aren't banned across the board, only nations with a high terrorist rate, which all happen to be in Islamic nations.
UAE wasn't part of the ban.
>as he shall deem necessary
The very wordage of the law makes his opinion on the matter fact. He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, the documents give him this liberty.