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

The inmates do seem to be in charge of the asylum right now, V.

I will agree with you on that.

But we will not go gentle into that miserable night. If Donald Trump or his puppets think we will, THEY are about to discover that will not happen.

 

Do not judge everyone by the actions of one person

 

The 9th circus is overturned more than 80% of the time. Would you call that competent? Maybe liberals have a different definition of competency than I do.

The EO was both legal, and Constitutional.

You will be finding this out soon enough.

Please continue the fight, I welcome it. The more progressives try, the more America sees it for what it is.

 

*sighs* I was warned about debating you and given the fact that you very clearly did not read the opinion I posted for you just goes to prove that point further.

Absolutely incorrect. Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor,
620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001). Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-16 (1976)

Again, absolutely false. The States are asserting on behalf of their universities - not the non-citizen immigrants.

Trump's administration tried to claim that the Courts did not have the authority to even review this decision and that is absolutely wrong. The Courts have repeatedly ruled that Court have the authority to review immigration. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001), INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)

And you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to claim that President Obama did the same thing as President Trump.

You are also forgetting the other Constitutional law that was duly enacted upon by Congress. The 1965 law which limited the 1952 law by stipulating that immigrants could not be denied a visa because of their race, sex, nationality or place of birth.

I sincerely hope that you understand CAPITALIZING random WORDS does not make your post ANY more ACCURATE. And in this case, like the several others from your post, you are absolutely wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

 

They will fail.

 

Oh I read it.

I read it enough to note you're just regurgitating the arguments that Robart used in his findings.

Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001). Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-16 (1976)

Plaintiffs vs the states in a case of age discrimination, alcohol intoxication, and a case involving abortion....all with named parties....all with US citizenship. How exactly does this make your case? None of this is regarding immigration, none of it deals with states representing damages caused by non-citizens who have no legal standing to present a damages case to SCOTUS.

The states allege that the Universities were harmed by not having non-citizens attend their college. How exactly do non-citizens submit a case before SCOTUS again? How exactly does the University show damages for non-citizens? How and why would the state get involved? Clearly, if damages are incurred, the plaintiff should be the university against the US. Of course they can't do that though.

Obama banned travel from several countries. It is no different but you're welcome to show otherwise. Carter also took the same actions.

SCOTUS has ruled time and again on the Plenary Powers Doctrine. Immigration is the sole purview of Congress. Oversight of non-US citizens in administrative immigration law is limited to due process, and the state is not even legally required to provide a lawyer. Mainly this exists to ensure that US citizens are not erroneously deported. The Judicial branch, according to SCOTUS, has no more authority than that.

Non-US citizens have few rights, other than those basic human rights granted to all people. They do not have a right to come into this country, even if they have a green card.

The 1965 law you quote was to ensure that there was no discrimination in the ISSUING of visas, not in the GRANTING of visas. Congress is not required in any way to grant visas or green cards. They could end ALL immigration tomorrow if they so desired.

The 9th circuit has the highest number of liberal judges in the country. From 1998 to 2008 61% of their findings were overturned. From 2010 to 2015 79% of their rulings were overturned.

You can Snope that all day if you want, facts are facts.

 

The 9th Circuit is NOT overturned more than 80% of the time.

And you do realize that there are two circuit courts that are overturned more often...right?

That is still to be determined...as it works its way through the system...if it does. It appears the Trump administration may have given up on it...and will put into place a replacement.

In any case, YOU do not get to make that decision...so give your ego a rest.

Perhaps not...as I mentioned above.

I intend to...and I am glad you welcome it. I welcome you welcoming it.

You may be correct on that...but in the opposite direction from what you intended.

We'll see.

 

Fabulous! The left excoriated Bush for everything he ever did, except this.

 

Since "facts are facts"...what happened to the "...is overturned more than 80% of the time" of your previous post?

 

LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking.

"You tell 'em George!!!"... wait, what in the hell just came out of my mouth?!?!

Now I know how Nomad felt.
[video=youtube;G6o881n35GU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU[/video]

 

Fake News:
The Fake Left once told us Bush was worse than Hitler, now they are quoting him against the next worse than Hitler GOP president.

No credibility!

 

Oh I forgot to destroy the rest of your argument.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001)

This case dealt with incarceration after the 90 days to deport, was a convicted criminal, and was ruled on to prevent indeterminate confinement.

This has nothing to do with immigration, the governments purview over immigration, or anything related to this case. It simply says you can't incarcerate someone indefinitely who is awaiting deportation.

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)

This case ruling was based on one house of Congress initiating a veto, where the veto should have been bicameral.

A technicality that has nothing to do with your defense of Robart.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/25165/Immigration-Naturalization-Service-v-Chadha-Significance.html
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-7791

So basically you threw up the ole "wall 'o text" defense.

Unfortunately for you, I know how to read, and it's clear that the emperor has no clothes.

 

Of the cases that SCOTUS reviews, they have been overturned 79% of the time.

I'm sorry I may have been off 1+ percentage points in my assertion, but then it is 2017, so it could have gone up.

None of that changes the fact that they get it wrong 79% of the time in the past 7 years.

If SCOTUS got to review all their cases, I'd bet it would be higher, but I admit that's conjecture.

 

Yes I made a huge mistake. It's only 79% of the time. My sincere apologies.

It's still atrocious.

We also had the 4th circuit rule against Heller the other day.

You're making my case for me, thanks.

LoL my ego. I'm not the one who presents his entire argument in bolded text. You can can it, I'm not impressed with your tough guy act.

Yeah we've seen what has happened to the Democrats seats since 2008, and now they doubled down with Perez. Excuse me while I laugh at the idea progressive race-baiting globalists going anywhere.

 

The States are representing the Universities and the harms that they suffer through loss of foreign students and teachers. The States are not representing the non-citizens and they are not standing in the place of non-citizens. And the Supreme Court, as I have cited, has repeatedly shown that Universities can sue on behalf of their students and that States can sue on behalf of State run universities.

And I was not merely citing the reasoning of Judge Robart. I am citing the reasoning of the unanimous 9th Circuit panel.

No, Obama limited one type of refugee program from one country. At no point during the Obama presidency did the United States see zero immigrants from the country in question (Iraq).

Then the executive order should have been written and implemented in a manner that limits itself to the powers over which the Congress has sole purview. The executive order did not and thus it failed.

Wait...you are claiming that the 1965 amendment still permits discrimination when it comes to granting visas?

Wrap your head around this fact. Of the cases decided by the 9th circuit, roughly 0.1% get approval for review by the Supreme Court. Now, if you want to claim that the 9th circuit gets a significant amount of its decisions overturned by the Supreme Court - AFTER the Supreme Court has had at least 4 justices vote to review the case - then you'd be correct. But you absolutely wrong if you still believe that 60-80% of the cases decided by the 9th circuit are overturned.

 

No point. SAD.

 

You are distinguishing cases based on the fact scenarios involved and there unrelated legal issues also being decided in those cases without acknowledging the reasons why those decisions were actually cited in the case at hand.

 

For eight years George Bush said he would not comment on the presidency of Barry Obama because it would be antithetical to the collegiality ex presidents traditionally extend to those currently in office.

Suddenly that courtesy is not extended to Donald Trump by Bush. I wonder why?
Could it be because Bush and Obama both worked towards the same ends, albeit through very different ways, and Trump is smashing that globalist mold?

I think that's certainly true. It's a good thing no one gives a damn what George Bush thinks, if he thinks at all.

 

I think it's because Bush was so vastly unpopular when he left office that he knew keeping his head down was the best way of improving his historical standing. Now that we have a president who threatens to upset Bush's title of "worst President of the last 40 years," Bush is a bit more willing to say something.

And then there is the potential fact that Bush merely disagreed with the policies of Obama, although he understood the reasoning and justification. The same can not be said for the current CIC.

 

Well then please enlighten us and tie it all together.

 

I had a good long argument and the board ate it, so I'll go with the short version for now.

Non-us citizens do not have a right to enter the US. Repeat that to yourself a few times.

Now explain how a university can suffer damages incurred by those who have no rights to be in the US, then explain how the state can show damages to a school trying to support those who have no right to be in the US.

What Obama did was no different. Either POTUS has the power or they do not. It doesn't matter if the number is cut in half, or cut to zero. They have the authority, for any class, and for any reason.

The 1965 amendment doesn't give anyone the right to enter the US. It changed the quota system. An interesting note is that crime in the US was pretty stable until 1965, where it had doubled by 1970 and then really started sky-rocketing. Coincidence? Also note, this could be changed again.

Your last statement is pure semantics. Of the cases reviewed by SCOTUS, 79% of them were found to have incompetent conclusions. If 79% of those presented are wrong, what do you think the percentage of those that are not presented are wrong? Yeah. Same.

 

Undoubtedly true though criticizing Obama during some of his antics would have been extremely popular with
the right wing...except it seems to be true that Bush and Obama held many of the same gloablast friendly views.

In terms of his ability to shoot himself in the foot, public relations wise, I think you are right.
In terms of policy I think Trump is already light years ahead of Bush, assuming you don't want open borders and a dysfunctional immigration system
and you are against pointless wars that drain the nation's economy and tie it down for decades on end, not to mention the human loss, which is a tragedy all in itself. I don't accept your premise, at all!

I'm very very certain that the Bush family does not like the policies of Donald Trump and that says
everything about the Bush family, and much less about Trump.
Globalists like the Bush clan are on the way out and not just in this country. Trump is probably the worst head of any government any movement could have in so many ways but what he stands for is so important we are more than willing to look past the messenger and focus intently on the message itself.

 

Independent means independent from Republicans not Democrats.

 

They support the establishment, no matter what; that's what is so hilarious about their ridiculous posturing, trying to sell idiots, i.e. each other, that they're 'progressives' and 'all radical n stuff!'. They're butt stupid and too uneducated, drug addled, and ill informed to realize they're just useful idiots and don't even bother to wonder over their own contradictions and cognitive dissonance. Most are just here to spam and astro-turf anyway. No need to take them seriously, as they're just vermin and sociopaths anyway, and were made irrelevant last Nov. 8, and are too emotionally retarded to get over it.

 

A suggestion here, not just for you; type out the long and complex stuff in wordpad or Open Office or whatever and save it first, then you can just cut and paste it again if it gets hosed, which is fairly common, and not just on this board' software and servers. Of course many already know this but still don't do that anyway ...