Trump travel ban: 'President must honour ruling'


No, not at all. What is good for the goose (Obama) is good for the gander (Trump). If Obama can do it, then Trump can do it. And obviously it was perfectly acceptable for Obama – we have eight years to prove it and nay a protest in sight. Remember that pen and phone thingy. Anyway, it’s not like Obama paid attention to court orders. So if Obama can ignore court orders, then Trump can ignore court orders. Not that any of them should and not that it is ethical or right – but since when has that stopped any of them.

It wasn’t just “contempt of court”.
It was contempt for a whole lot of things.

Barack Obama led the way …
It was contempt of the middle class.
It was contempt of the will of the people.
It was contempt of integrity.
It was contempt of transparency.
It was contempt of fiscal responsibility.

Really, really tired of the hypocrisy.



Justice Department challenges judge’s halt of travel ban

The Justice Department on Saturday night filed an appeal to a court order halting President Trump’s travel ban, requesting that implementation of the controversial executive order resume immediately.

The initial injunction, handed down by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, effectively paused all implementation of Mr. Trump’s signed executive order, which prohibited entry into the U.S. to all refugees and citizens from seven countries with Muslim-majority populations.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota against the Trump administration challenging the ban. Robart issued a temporary restraining order to pause its implementation until the case was heard, saying the states had legal standing to contest the president’s directive and had showed their case was likely to succeed.

The departments of State and Homeland Security complied immediately with the order by the Seattle-based judge.

On Saturday, the State Department issued a statement saying it had reinstated visas that were not physically canceled, so travel to the U.S. could resume for those banned under the executive order.



Re: Trump travel ban: ‘President must honour ruling’
*Quote: It doesn’t matter!! SCOTUS has already ruled executive orders are valid regardless of which court decided it. Constitutional law makes the opinions of the Supreme Court the supreme law of the land. Since SCOTUS said U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights can be suspended (How else can you justify the Japanese interment of Americans) by executive order, then this executive order banning immigrants has already been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court as being valid. So what good will it be for lower Federal courts to issue a rulings in clear violation of a previous stare decisis ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court? *

What good it will do is to delay the implementation of the executive order and to turn something that should be routine into a legal battle. They will make life miserable.

Take this situation and multiply it by multiples of additional Presidential orders, decisions, actions … what if nearly everything Trump does now becomes a legal battle?

The challengers may not win in the end, but that strategy could make it extremely difficult to govern. As long as the attorney filing the case can avoid frivolous litigation sanctions …



For something considered so vitally, vitally urgent to our national security, I’m a little surprised the Trump Admin wasn’t ready to appeal immediately instead of taking 24 hrs. I’d have thought they would have been expecting a lawsuit and potential ruling against the President and had been ready to go.



On-the-job training takes time. They’ll come around.


Seriously though, Mike Pence is our next president. Bannon has to go. And so does Trump. They are living in a fantasy world, not only on this issue but others as well.

Trump doesn’t get it.



Why in the world would the Trump administration have any expectation that they would need to appeal established law? To have an appeal ready to file in case a judge would rule in direct opposition to settled law … no one would expect to have to do that. This is unprecedented and this does not bode well for our courts or our government.



At least they showed up and gave him his team to work with. They didn’t take the ball and go home… and take tax payer salary for nothing. WE PAY THEIR SALARIES!!!



The numbers are misleading since Obama has used various forms of Executive Actions with abundance. 2,066 total in fact per the Washington Post three weeks ago…



Ruling from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: For now, still no travel ban.



I thought that all you had to say when disagreeing with a*government action was “Not my Judge” or something like that, and call for “Resistance!” :rolleyes: :stuck_out_tongue:



If he had went that route, whatever bill they eventually came up with 1.5 years later, would not be anything close to what Trump wanted and its likely they would have ‘tacked on’ a bunch of unrelated stuff they wanted to push thru.

I think he should have more power thru executive orders actually.



What doesn’t Trump get? He stumbled on how he executed this executive order, there is no doubt with that, but is there really something wrong with a President wanting to take steps to keep the nation safe?



The appeals court refused to reinstate the ban.

So, Trump will not have a quick and easy path on this issue. He may win, but it might very well take months, perhaps even years–and that is all the left wanted from this.



Actually the appeals court has scheduled a hearing for Monday and after that a decision will be issued. What was rejected was an emergency stay on the district court’s restraining order. I seriously doubt this matter will take months and months to resolve. This case will be fast tracked.



It will be appealed. Don’t get your panties in a bunch!



First, I oppose the ban on refugees. Second, it’s not about the number but the nature of executive orders. President Obama’s orders were often extreme executive overreach and even more often had nothing to do with law or the Constituion but were based on social issues held dear by the left.

The election of President Trump is a great opportunity for republicans to help foster a new found love and respect for federalism on the left. Subsidiarity and diffusion of power suddenly sounds very good, eh? Well I think it always has and perhaps after eight years of Obama and now the election of Trump, we can all get back to the idea that devolution of power to the lowest level–beginning in the family–is quite desirable.

Of course the alternative that we just turn our kids over to the government as “intellectuals” like Melissa Harris-Perry would have it or at least would have had it when President Obama was still in office presumably holding the seat for Secretary Clinton…



No you just tweet the “so called” judge.



So, why can’t the Republicans find a different District Court judge to overturn the Democrat’s district court judge?

We’ve seen 8 years (or more) of judges of various stripes inventing new laws, or eliminating new laws that they don’t happen to agree with personally. Roe v Wade is a prime example of this…we didn’t vote for it, a judge invented the right to abortion. We didn’t vote for gay marriage, a judge invented that right as well…etc…etc…

This should all come to a stop, but so long as someone starts it up, it seems like a “response in kind” might be the only way to stop it.


closed #39

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit