ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Even if /when this version falls, he's normalized a religious test that has ample defenders.
I believe he's trying to set the stage for a Muslim ban in order to do what he was voted into office to do.
Oh, ok. That's just your belief as to his real intention. So rather than bother to debate the merits of your belief, do you also believe he could do this?
They'll cut it to four and try again. Then they'll make some type of grand compromise that only applies to Syria, walk it back quietly and blame Obama somehow then point at the next shiny object and tweet about it/
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Trump campaigned on doing a Muslim ban. A trusted advisor came out and said Trump wanted to figure out how to do a legal Muslim ban and they came up with this.
So I have some pretty good evidence that his intention is to do a Muslim ban. You regularly try to pass on your beliefs as my real intentions with far less evidence.
They came up with this? Are you sure about that Ph. "This" already existed. Obama signed it into law in 2015 and his administration expanded it from four to the current seven countries last winter. Trump says it needs to be strengthened. And no one is asking the obvious questions. See my prior post immediately above.
And when Trump says today Visas will be issued from all of these countries again within 90 days that would be evidence there will be no ban, never mind all the other countries where there is not even a temporary stay. Is that evidence too?
Again, do you believe he could actually do a "Muslim ban" legally?
No, you really don't get it. For one thing, the judiciary is already stacked with Obama appointees. There aren't a huge number of vacancies, and Obama's appointees aren't going anywhere for a long time. For another thing, jurists, even conservative ones, swear to uphold the constitution and, to a person, take that oath seriously. If anything, they have an inflated sense of their own Article III power to stop Article II abuses, which isn't entirely a bad thing in a system of checks and balances. No one in who could get confirmed is going to roll over because Trump appointed him, particularly if, as Trump claims, he's going to appoint judges who adhere to the original meaning of the constitution.
There may be decisions that arise out of this that you disagree with, but they won't be because a judge is cowed by Trump.
I missed when green card holders were refused entry to the country under our last President. Strange that FoxNews and Breitbart didn't cover it.
LOLWUT? There are more than a hundred vacant judgeships open right now, basically one out of every eight. As a point of comparison, only 329 of Obama's judges were confirmed in eight years. Trump could do a third of Obama's eight-year total tomorrow if he could get the Republican Senate to go along.
Sadly, I can believe that DeacMan can't understand the difference between "limiting" and "banning". This is a massive difference.
There is nothing to "understand" because an out and out ban (a) isn't in the offing, and (b) isn't legally possible.
Interesting you mention this. Because last Spring various civil liberties groups were focused on the possibility the administration would ban not only Green Card holders but dual citizens (e.g. an Iranian / American for instance) from traveling to the U.S. And no one in the media reported on it.
Obama did 325, not 329. Same number as Bush. How many Trump gets to do remains to be seen.
They came up with this? Are you sure about that Ph. "This" already existed. Obama signed it into law in 2015 and his administration expanded it from four to the current seven countries last winter. Trump says it needs to be strengthened. And no one is asking the obvious questions. See my prior post immediately above.