George W. Bush critiques Trump on travel ban, free press

You mean the president who flew the Bin Ladens out of this nation on 911 when all non military flights were stopped? That president, who has ties with the Saudis? The same family that financed the 911 attack? That president? The same family that allowed the banking cabal and MNCs concoct NAFTA? Those people? Get outta town Jack. Trump is going after what this family wrought on the common man. GO TRUMP.

The problem is...we have had incompetent presidents for so long, that when a competent one gets elected, and starts delivering on his promises, this is seen as incompetence, for you have never seen competence in that office, and now you do. Clearly the trump haters are incapable of recognizing competence.

 

Obama is way worse.

 

Count as the opinion of one judiciary? Sure. But his opinion would not be dispositive and likely would be deemed unpersuasive in light of the numerous other judges that have ruled against the President, including the judge in Virginia, the judge in Washington and the 9th circuit appellate court judges who have all ruled against Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a link to the CNN's political page. Please tell me which article you believe is fake.

http://www.cnn.com/politics

 

No passengers departed the USA once the ban on flights took place. Nothing but military was allowed to fly.

There were claims by Democrat agitators that some of the Saudi Royals were allowed to depart. That however was just one more Democratic party falsehood. This was perhaps a dream they had. But until airspace opened again, no flights were allowed of any civilian nature.

 

It's pretty insane there are people so dishonest and brainwashed they even have the nerve to try to defend Trump. Trump, who gets pretty much all his information from Fox news, and conveniently gets it wrong nearly every time he speaks. Hmm, which news is really fake? Or Fox news that had someone they claimed was a Swedish intelligence person who Sweden has no idea who that person is. Just another fake so called "expert" on Fox news.

He's caught in multiple lies on a daily basis, his administration lies on a daily basis, and run with it. Yet, he says pretty much all the major journalists around the country are all fake. ha, what a crock of S. Also science is fake. Hey, don't go to Harvard, its fake facts they teach there.

 

Depends upon who you ask. If you ask a bunch of presidential historians, then Bush ranks 33rd compared to Obama's 12th best.

 

Yes, it does. Illegally entering the country is against federal immigration law.

No, the President has, by law, the authority to limit ANY CLASS of alien from entering the country. Any means any. He could make them wear giant orange ear tags while they're in the country as well.

Non US citizens have very few rights under the Constitution, regardless of having a green card or not. You may want to educate yourself on the Plenary Powers.

You're also wrong about the Judiciary. The Judiciary's only role is to interpret law, not create law.

SCOTUS has ruled before that the Judicial branch has zero authority to override the legislative or executive branches on immigration. I'll say that again. The Judicial branch has ZERO authority to approve or disapprove of immigration laws. Immigration is a power specifically granted to Congress.

The WA judge broke the law and ignored his responsibilites in several areas.

First of all, he allowed two states to claim they had standing to represent citizens and non-citizens of their states and the US respectively. He had zero authority to even hear the case presented by the states.

Secondly, he did not base his ruling on the law. He did not look to a single law, nor did he rule on the law. His ruling was based on his (incorrect) belief that no one from those 7 countries had ever committed a terrorist act, and then ruled on that.

Lastly, he did not even explain how he reached his conclusions.

Finally, the 9th circuit court that reviewed the findings did not make a ruling, they simply didn't make any ruling, therefore the lower courts findings held.

The WA judge refused to do his legal duty. That's the truth of the matter.

 

Obama worse, How? You people never say how or why, except maybe whine about Obamacare, which covers what, 30 million people? The orange clown has nothing to replace it....His latest evasive lie is that, "nobody knew how complicated health care is." A ha ha ha....Sounds like he's crawfishing already.

 

The courts are an abomination. They have zero authority over immigration or national security.

The states had no standing to even bring a case.

The judges are activists, not judges.

 

Just do me a favor and read the opinion from the 9th Circuit. Hopefully you will see the numerous errors from your post. Here is a link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

I also want you to ask yourself. If the district court judge in Seattle made as many clear errors as you seem to believe should be so obvious, why did the Trump administration request that the judge not rule on the merits of the case - why did the Trump administration decide to write a new executive order?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you want a constitutional crisis? Because that is how you get a constitutional crisis.

 

Trump is too old and senile to be pre3sident..

 

<Mod Edit>

In any case, the argument that the courts have zero authority over immigration or national security is about as meaningful as saying they have zero authority over whether you eat pancakes or oatmeal in the morning for breakfast.

The court MOST ASSUREDLY can rule on the merits of a presidential executive order...which is what they did.

If Vman actually does think the courts have ZERO AUTHORITY over immigration or national security...he apparently is saying that the president is a dictator...and has the power of dictator.

Suppose for example the president decided any questionable attempt at entry into our country be considered a capital offense without benefit of trial...and with execution to occur within 24 hours of the attempt...

...ZERO AUTHORITY would mean that could not be challenged!

<Mod Edit>

 

Wow, you and I might also get accused. Watch that.

 

The problem is that it takes a higher court to make those rulings. Trump could have prevailed in a higher court. Thing with the USSC is the court is evenly divided.

Watch for Democrats to try to totally block the SC justice appointed by Trump. They are in rage mode.

 

Well, Bush was never accused of having anything resembling 'Deep Thoughts', plus he made quite a bit of money off of friendships with Bandar Bush, his Saudi brother, and his Kuwaiti friends, not that the people of Bush's class have ever been overmuch concerned with duty to country when it interferes with their personal 'bidness' fortunes, so he would naturally favor foreigners over Americans in that regard, like most of those in the oil business. The fact the he doesn't realize Islam is pretty much nothing else but a political ideology is more evidence he's an idiot, so that's probably why some on the faux 'left' are so suddenly attracted to him; he's one of them intellectually and morally. It's not like the terrorist ever target enclaves like Beverly hills, Nob Hill, or the Hamptons when they blow up people they tend to target places populated by the unwashed proles and 'lower classes', so people like the Bushes, Soros, or the Schumers aren't the least bit worried about who gets in.

And then there are the better educated who expect any Bush to whine about Trump, since he beat Jeb like he didn't exist at all in the primaries; the Bushes and the rest of the establishment are just as much enemies as the Democrats are, after all, and they're that proving every day. Trump voters were voting against them as much as against Hillary.

 

Wow , Mark this day down on your calendar. Democrats care what George W. Bush has to say. I'm shocked I tell ya.

 

Which is still far better than young, stupid, and Muslim, like Obama, or old, senile, and crooked, like sociopath Hillary. Trump could just sun himself on the White House lawn for 8 years and still be a far greater President than those two sick freaks and their Party.

 

Yes, but they passed a lot of new angles under Obama when trying to give him dictatorial powers they're now going to regret passing since they lost all across the board, so it may not be as grim as all that.

 

Obamacare or the ACA is deeply flawed. It is in the process of collapsing. It is not the only form of health care that could have been passed. Nanci Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to allow any of the republican amendments to be part of the ACA. Both essentially took the RNC congressmen out of the game.

I think now the shoe is on the other foot and am kind of hoping the republicans play the same kind of hardball.

Rather than me point out the bad of Obama, let his supporters show me the good.

But to help the ball roll

Obama sucked due to his extremely long lag in knowing of the problem to stumbling his way into what he thought was an answer. The keystone pipeline is a gross example. Trump would have decided in weeks, not years.

Obama sucked on his involvement in Afghanistan. For a war he claimed to like, he sure bungled his share of it.

Obama needed to find a path to keep our men in Iraq. I know Bush set up the deal for our men to depart, but in the short and long run, leaving doomed Iraq to the mess it presently has.

Syria was none of our business. For him to draw a red line was nuts. And he never meant it.

Talk about thin skins, why did he fire General Stanley McChrystal? That was a huge error since he got rid of perhaps the best General then available who had real solutions.

His clumsy way of handling the ACA is legendary with the medical professionals. My own doctor told me in clear words, it was extremely clumsy.

The ACA only got the people to sign up by threats of penalties. And that is no way to deal with the public.

The ACA has skipped at least twenty million people. Most of the younger healthy crowd find it cost effective to pay the fine as opposed to many thousands to insurance companies.

Since the historians of the USA are themselves Democrats/supporters I find them ranking Obama to be a lesson in being silly.

Bear in mind he got the Nobel Peace prize yet had not served but a few days in office. They went nuts over Obama. That is far too subjective and to rank him higher than Bush is stone crazy.

Historians also rank the nations president who is the head of the pack on getting Americans killed in combat as number 1. They must have figured he was in war due to slavery. But Abe the Outlaw is still who massed troops in DC and invaded VA and other states. A true number 1 president would have spent more time solving the problem as opposed to gunning them down.

Washington the admitted father of presidents still went to war with the then authority nation. While I sympathize with all of our founders, very pleased at how they created the free nation, the system collapsed starting with Wilson and in large finished off by FDR.

In short, historians favor Democrats. And yet they were the father of slavery and the KKK and on and on.

Don't mind helping you at all. You are welcome.

- - - Updated - - -

If McConnell grows a backbone ... sure.

 

I am shocked.

 

That's what he appears to be doing so far.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/president-trump-has-done-almost-nothing-214775

 

The left now supports Bush? Talk about a 180! What a world.

 

First of all, Judge Robart created the first ever case of granting states standing via the parens patriae doctrine. This has never been used to defend non-citizen immigrants and which is uniquely under the federal government&#8217;s purview.

Secondly, here is the LAW, duly granted specifically by Congress to the POTUS:

Section 1182(f):

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.

THAT is Constitutional law. THAT was not what was ruled on. THAT ruling does not recognize the fact that several presidents in the past have done EXACTLY this, including the last POTUS.

We do have a Constituional crisis, and that is evident when over EIGHTY PERCENT of the 9th circuit's rulings are OVERTURNED by SCOTUS.

The area of failure to understand the Constitution, the law, and the authority of the judicial branch rests squarely in the 9th circuit and other courts.

That EO was temporary, so going to SCOTUS with it was a waste of time.

I suspect we'll be reading soon about how the 9th circuit, and "judge" Robart specifically, is going to get a proverbial boot in it's nether regions.

 

Plenary power. SCOTUS has upheld it time and again.

Congress itself has the power to disband every court in the country except for SCOTUS, in fact.

Let the little progressive judge-kings keep thinking they're in charge, they're about to discover they're not.

 

We do not have a Constitutional crisis. Our Constitution is just fine.

We DO have a presidential crisis...occasioned by the fact that the guy who was recently elected to the office is not intellectually or psychologically fit for the position.

We are stuck with it, though...and will have to make do as best as possible. I suspect that will include fighting him on many fronts often.