One of those judges was a conservative Republican appointed by Bush. It must be pointed out that such a policy can only be legally justified by the executive demonstrating a clear and present danger. One way to do so is to present classified material in camera to the intelligence committees of both chambers of Congress. Trump has not even called them into emergency session. Next stop - the US Supreme Court which needs to set aside any possibility of political influence. It must base its ruling on solid Constitutional grounds. What happens next remains to be seen.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
One of those judges was a conservative Republican appointed by Bush. It must be pointed out that such a policy can only be legally justified by the executive demonstrating a clear and present danger. One way to do so is to present classified material in camera to the intelligence committees of both chambers of Congress. Trump has not even called them into emergency session. Next stop - the US Supreme Court which needs to set aside any possibility of political influence. It must base its ruling on solid Constitutional grounds. What happens next remains to be seen.
I don't think so. They are the MOST OVERTURNED Court in the Land. They have a rich History of basing their decisions on Political Ideology, rather than the Constitution or the Law.
One thing to note is if the Administration continues to fight this, it will move to another District Court for consideration, and eventually the Supreme Court as I understand it.
Judges appointed by Republican Presidents are not sure fire Conservatives/Constitutionalists, just look to SCOTUS.......Kennedy?
There are those in D.C. who disagree. There is one Lady Justice who may well rule in favor of Trump/the Administration based on Constitutional Separation of Powers, and past Rulings. Napolitano on FNC last night spoke of this, and believes she could well do so. But, I don't wanna hold my breath.......
Funny thing is...........if he would set aside his ego, Trump could throw a huge wrench into all the plans of the liberals who are having a hissy fit over all of this. All he has to do is call in Sessions and Kelly to the Oval Office, write a new Executive Order that clears up the messy parts of the first Executive Order (American Citizens abroad, Green Card Holders, valid Visa Holders 'n' such) and sign that Executive Order. He can rescind the original Executive Order with the swipe of a pen and sign the new Executive Order into effect the same way at the same time. In this way, all the dozens of Law Suits currently filed in various Courts would be of no value/standing, as the old Executive Order has been rescinded. They would have to look at the new Executive Order to determine if they want to file Suits against it, but all of the first Suits would be void. Even that of the 9th Circuit and it's Ruling.
However, I do not see Trump doing this.........it is now a pi*(^(^ing contest between him and the Liberal Courts, and no longer about what is best for the Country..........(in my opinion)
However, I do not see Trump doing this.........it is now a pi*(^(^ing contest between him and the Liberal Courts, and no longer about what is best for the Country..........(in my opinion)
Can you tell me why it seemed important for you to expend the time and effort to highlight and then delete that three-word-portion of a very short quote that was already automatically included when you replied? That was really a strange thing to do.
And you guys wonder why we have a hard time believing what you post is the full truth about things.
Last edited:
You caught that little thing that was Insignificant but every thing that President Trump does wrong seems to be overlooked as figuritive and dismissed.
Or he will say he doesn't want a judge of Mexican heritage presiding over his court action against Mexico. Well, I think that is entirely reasonable. Do you think a KKK member could realistically expect a Black judge to be fair and unbiased when the case is between him and a Black man?
The difference between Trump and a "politician" is simply speaking of a situation as he sees it.... as opposed to someone who has been trained to say things in such a way that you cannot really know how they truly think.
And in my post, I deliberately started it with "In this case" because I do not usually agree with much you say... and you, just as deliberately, had to have gone out of your way to delete those three words from my post.
Okay,I guess I got way off the OP,my bad.
No mistake here on my part as Judge Richard Clifton is a Republican appointed by Bush. Was going to correct something else but it all appears moot as Trump is not going to appeal the appellate court's decision (at least to this point):
Trump won't immediately appeal travel ban halt to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Note again that the commentators are re-echoing something I wrote earlier: that Trump can still conceivably win his case without further legal actions if he just streamlines his executive order to make it more palatable to the Congressional intelligence committees.
Good, honest appraisal of Trump.
Philip Roth had something to say about his coarseness though his words may not be quite as acceptable to some here:
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1....=0f31b73765d10fcd0b6639caf265e2f3&oe=58FF8EB3
full article here:
Philip Roth E-Mails on Trump - The New Yorker
I may be wrong but we have not discussed the Bible at length in regard to this topic.
Here are some verses on the subject:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/immigration
Bible law requires granting solace to refugees and strangers. As so many of you have said on this forum, the USA is a Christian nation. But how can Christians obey the Bible if the government is going to interfere with their efforts to do so? Several cities have declared that they will serve as sanctuary cities. But some on the far right (many of whom claim to be Christian) do not want them to exercise this legal right.
So what comes first - Trump or the Bible?
Here are some verses on the subject:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/immigration
Bible law requires granting solace to refugees and strangers. As so many of you have said on this forum, the USA is a Christian nation. But how can Christians obey the Bible if the government is going to interfere with their efforts to do so? Several cities have declared that they will serve as sanctuary cities. But some on the far right (many of whom claim to be Christian) do not want them to exercise this legal right.
So what comes first - Trump or the Bible?
That is all well and good, but, lest we forget, the Bible ALSO SAYS to obey the Laws of Caesar for the Glory of God.....
We can not cherry pick Scripture to support a particular ideology.......we have to consider ALL of Scripture, and then determine what would be the best course of action (in my opinion).
We can not cherry pick Scripture to support a particular ideology.......we have to consider ALL of Scripture, and then determine what would be the best course of action (in my opinion).
Be more positive minded and not so quick to see a person's constitutional rights as If they are abusing their rights negatively on steroids,but I do understand what you are saying.
I think you are saying,why would someone come here and then try to make us except their ways rather than realize that they are now In America.
I think you are saying,why would someone come here and then try to make us except their ways rather than realize that they are now In America.Something to consider:
Acculturation is one of several forms of culture contact, and has a couple of closely related terms, including assimilation and amalgamation. Although all three of these words refer to changes due to contact between different cultures, there are notable differences between them.Acculturation is often tied to political conquest or expansion, and is applied to the process of change in beliefs or traditional practices that occurs when the cultural system of one group displaces that of another.
Assimilation refers to the process through which individuals and groups of differing heritages acquire the basic habits, attitudes, and mode of life of an embracing culture. Amalgamation refers to a blending of cultures, rather than one group eliminating another (acculturation) or one group mixing itself into another (assimilation).
Acculturation is one of several forms of culture contact, and has a couple of closely related terms, including assimilation and amalgamation. Although all three of these words refer to changes due to contact between different cultures, there are notable differences between them.Acculturation is often tied to political conquest or expansion, and is applied to the process of change in beliefs or traditional practices that occurs when the cultural system of one group displaces that of another.
Assimilation refers to the process through which individuals and groups of differing heritages acquire the basic habits, attitudes, and mode of life of an embracing culture. Amalgamation refers to a blending of cultures, rather than one group eliminating another (acculturation) or one group mixing itself into another (assimilation).