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

They haven't had any since the 1960's, so they're used to it. They're just babbling to each other, attempting to comfort themselves, which is why they never have any genuine 'talking points' or can defend anything they babble. No different here.

 

Usually what I do is just copy paste long replies, I just didn't do it this time. Oh well, hindsight and everything.

 

What a world where GW Bush sounds like the voice of reason from the republican party. How far they've fallen.

 

Well I never thought I'd see the day. This was the President they wrote books and movies about, detailing how they'd like to assassinate him. What a world.

 

Because it's better to go overseas, and kill Muslims, and Americans, rather than just deny some from Muslim nations entry.

Beyond bizarre, it seems many people struggle with a rational, and moral mode of thought.

 

I have been wanting to ask leftists the following for many years now, and this is the golden opportunity since they are now PRAISING G.W. Bush, the fellow that they used to think of as The Great Satan. Hey leftists in regards to ol' G.W.:

 

The Romans also cared more about going to war overseas, than their looming multiculturalism.

In the end it was the very Gothic Germans from within, lead by Alaric who toppled Rome.

It seems some truly need to get a history lesson.

 

Every now and then George W. Surprises me and dies the right thing.

 

Oh come off it with the fake outrage there was no one in thevopposition party who was advocating harm to him. Let's discuss real issues and use real facts not fake outrage and Alt facts.m

 

I am not making your case for you...and, incidentally, neither are you.

I have mentioned a couple of times that I had a minor stroke and that my eye sight has been impaired. I bold in order to more easily find my posts when scrolling. I apologize if it bothers you. But it shouldn't.

As for the reversal rate of the SCOTUS...you might want to read this:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ourt-country-/

If you truly have an open mind...it might put some of this issue into a sharper perspective.

 

I was referencing citations from the 9th circuit opinion that I linked for you. If you would like me to also quote the reason that those cases were cited, then I will.

Zadvydas v. Davis - emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations

INS v. Chadha - “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” And rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power."

Hontz v. State, Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor - Public universities are branches of the States under state law

Singleton v. Wulff - Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the executive order. Specifically this case explains that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights.

 

Done. I still believe, like the unanimous three judge panel of the 9th circuit and numerous other judges across the country, that the executive order as it was written did not pass constitutional muster.

Some of the people from the seven countries banned will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. Those result in damages to the University. As I addressed elsewhere, damages to the public Universities are damages to the State itself.

Do you truly believe that banning all individuals from seven countries, suspending all refugee programs permanently from one country, imposing a religious test on refugee status, etc. is NO DIFFERENT from limiting one type of refugee program from one country?

Since you want to engage in some unrelated discussion of crime rates, I will just say that the reason that the crime rate dropped so significantly, starting in the 1990s, from the highs of the 70s and 80s, is because of Roe v. Wade.

If you define "semantics" as "statistics," then you are correct. The Supreme Court does not review all decisions because the OVERWHELMING percentage of the decisions are not controversial or worthy of review because each circuit is entitled to reviewing and interpreting the laws of their various districts. The decisions which the Supreme Court does decide to review are, by definition, controversial because 4 of the judges have deemed the decision questionable enough to review the decision.

And again, the 79% refers to one specific time period of one specific subset of decisions (i.e. those which the Supreme Court decided to review).

 

This is a false choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. He is missed because while he would still be a significant drop from the previous President, he is much more preferable to the current President.

 

Is there some kind of benefit of having Muslims come to the United States that I'm unaware of?

 

Summarizing a millennium of history in two sentences?

 

The first one wasn't about immigration, it was about indefinite incarceration, and has nothing to do with the case.

The second one was a ruling on bicameral veto power, and a technicality that inadvertently affected an action by Congress.

The third one is the shining jewel. What Robart did here was say that the college has a right to petition the government to force the legislative and executive branch to admit non-us citizens.

Clearly, based on the plenary powers of the executive and legislative branches, non-US citizens do not have standing, nor do 3rd parties have the right to request they have standing so as to cause damages. What Robart did here was come dangerously close to ruling that non-US citizens have the RIGHT to enter the US.

If a non-US citizen cannot directly bring a case before the federal courts as named plaintiffs, then third parties cannot bring cases before SCOTUS involving them.

SCOTUS has ruled time and again that the executive and legislative branches have full authority over immigration based on the plenary powers doctrine.

Robart is a progressive liberal. He based his ruling on his belief that there was no evidence that people from those 7 countries had ever caused harm to the US, therefore the PURPOSE of the EO was invalid.

His job is to interpret the law, not evaluate the effects of such a law.

He was wrong at every turn.

 

Do you have any evidence of Balkanization being favorable?

 

Foreign born doctors make up roughly one quarter of practicing physicians - without foreign born doctors, our medical system would be even more understaffed. What percentage of those practicing physicians would you guess are Muslims?

 

Oh I see. My apologies I don't recall ever reading that you had a stroke. I hope things get better for you.

Your link doesn't work by the way.

 

We could easily import more Hindus to cover that.
I'm personally cool with the Hindus, they actually make some of the best Americans thus far.

 

You are not going to win this argument if you keep thinking that I am quoting Robart. I am not. I am quoting the unanimous three court panel from the 9th circuit. A three judge panel that included Republican appointee.

You are also not going to win the argument by echoing your God Emperor and de-legitimizing a sitting federal court judge because you view him as a "progressive liberal." You are also not going to win an argument by saying that an argument is "clearly" the case.

If your argument needs to include the word, "clearly," then the argument is almost never clear.

Would you like me to start quoting the Virginia judge whose ruling went even further than Robart?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

- - - Updated - - -

You are demanding a religious test. Our Constitution demands that we do not demand such.

Be American first.

- - - Updated - - -

I fail to see a reason why I should need to do such.

 

I'd imagine Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have liked for there to be millions of Muslims in the United States.

He did go to war with the Islamic Barbary Pirates, after all.

 

I'm not so sure he would want Christians dictating what happens in our country either.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 

I'm quite certain they wanted the United States to have freedom of religion for White people.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 proves it.

 

Balkanization ended up with horrible consequences across Eastern Europe, but let's experiment, and try it again, this time in Western Europe.

I personally don't get it, can you please enlighten me?