this will crush your fragile ego.
https://thinkpol.ca/2017/02/01/trum...val-ratings-since-the-approval-ratings-began/
https://thinkpol.ca/2017/02/01/trum...val-ratings-since-the-approval-ratings-began/
Don't look now Donnie
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
So Trump only has a 13% approval rating from Democrats.......surprise surprise surprise. Could that be because he is undoing Obama's "legacy"?
And the hits keep coming.
It's a terrible thing when an idiot tries to implement law.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...trump-travel-ban-nationwide-article-1.2963973
It's a terrible thing when an idiot tries to implement law.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...trump-travel-ban-nationwide-article-1.2963973
this same idiot...
U.S. District Judge James Robart declared “black lives matter” in court Monday during a hearing on Seattle police reform.
U.S. District Judge James Robart declared “black lives matter” in court Monday during a hearing on Seattle police reform.
bush was a puppet just like obama...
same tree...
can be bought because they're NOT billionaires...
same tree...
can be bought because they're NOT billionaires...
Something very disturbing about this is the lie that was repeated until today when the truth came out in a Virginia court.
Remember Spicer making the claim that only 109 people were temporarily detained in their travels? And he repeated it ever since Monday. We found out that over 100,000 visas were revoked, out of about 300,000 total travelers.
Remember Spicer making the claim that only 109 people were temporarily detained in their travels? And he repeated it ever since Monday. We found out that over 100,000 visas were revoked, out of about 300,000 total travelers.
Talk about lies. That post redefines dishonesty. Why must you lie about everything?
All of the whining about it is based on partisan politics. Time to clean up sime judges as well.
I am pretty confident the stay on the ban will be upheld.
From Section 202 (a) (1)(A) of the INA "…no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
Last edited:
It is a temporary thing moron. Please end the stupidity. Nobody can be this dumb.
So, people persecuted because of their religion can't be taken ahead of a person who just smells bad?
Don't bring age in to the fray Dave -- ain't all of us elders included in this crap. It is Just a crying shame; the situation our government has brought to us over the last half century.
This is what happens when our government forgets who it works for. The oeople will revilt and what comes from the revolt may not be pretty.
This is what happens when a bunch of morons elect an idiot who has no f'uckin clue what the Constitution says and means.
That is BS. I don't like Trump and did not vote for either candidate. He alone is not totally accountable for the state of the union. With that said, the Government, regardless of leader(s), has not done the U.S. citizenry many favors of the last half century. Big business and the banking institutions have mostly thrived but the common man not prospered nearly as well.
Of course they did, it's the 9th circuit.
In other news, on the same day as 9th circuit stay... Link
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples
Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new “rights” not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge’s own sensibilities, to name just a few. Rather than succumb to these temptations, judges should strive to put aside their personal views and policy preferences in order to maintain impartiality and render sound judgments according to the laws as written.
The concept of judicial activism is much easier to demonstrate with real cases than to describe in the abstract. Reasonable people may disagree about whether judges have properly carried out their duty in difficult cases, but some instances of activism are plain. When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers’ vision of our republican democracy—famously, a government of laws and not of men—is compromised.
The term “judicial activism” refers to errors in a judge’s method of analysis and is not simply a criticism of a case’s outcome. When a judge puts policy considerations above the requirements of law, bends the text of the Constitution or laws to comport with his or her own sensibilities, or otherwise angles for particular results in a case, that judge has stepped outside the proper constitutional role of policing the structural limits on government and neutrally interpreting the laws and the Constitution.
Striving to interpret laws in light of their original public meaning is not necessarily an easy task, but it is the surest way for judges to resist the temptation to stray from the text and resort to judicial activism. The Framers of the Constitution intended that the United States would be a government of laws, not of men, but each “activist” decision chips away at this design, bringing us closer to a robed oligarchy.
Judicial activism can take a number of different forms. These include importing foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, elevating policy considerations above the requirements of law, discovering new “rights” not found in the text, and bending the text of the Constitution or a law to comport with the judge’s own sensibilities, to name just a few. Rather than succumb to these temptations, judges should strive to put aside their personal views and policy preferences in order to maintain impartiality and render sound judgments according to the laws as written.
The concept of judicial activism is much easier to demonstrate with real cases than to describe in the abstract. Reasonable people may disagree about whether judges have properly carried out their duty in difficult cases, but some instances of activism are plain. When judges impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, the Framers’ vision of our republican democracy—famously, a government of laws and not of men—is compromised.
The term “judicial activism” refers to errors in a judge’s method of analysis and is not simply a criticism of a case’s outcome. When a judge puts policy considerations above the requirements of law, bends the text of the Constitution or laws to comport with his or her own sensibilities, or otherwise angles for particular results in a case, that judge has stepped outside the proper constitutional role of policing the structural limits on government and neutrally interpreting the laws and the Constitution.
Striving to interpret laws in light of their original public meaning is not necessarily an easy task, but it is the surest way for judges to resist the temptation to stray from the text and resort to judicial activism. The Framers of the Constitution intended that the United States would be a government of laws, not of men, but each “activist” decision chips away at this design, bringing us closer to a robed oligarchy.
Speaking of dumbfuk, you do realize the current travel ban is completely different from the previous ones, right?
Didn't think so.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-applies-eight-countries-heres-why/699962001/
And you realize the previous ones were headed to the Supreme Court, right?
Didn't think so.
What is so neat about your posts is that you are too f'ucking stupid to realize just how stupid you are.