President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[byu71]

By whom? The public ought to be able to retain that right and even the president "should" be able to do it, it just doesn't reflect well on any president who would openly mock the judiciary.

How about Senators, House of Representitives, Former representitives, etc. I think they should be roundly criticized if the mock the judges. They can disagree all they want.

Trump is just a loud mouth. If he had left out "so-called", he would have been OK??

Also my using the term "should" is different than they must and reflects an opinion. Of course they have the right.

[myboynoah]

The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive the right to regulate immigration for specific countries when there is a threat that needs addressed. Also the constitution grants the president emergency wartime powers. I don't think either situation applies.

The judiciary does and has ruled, not on foreign policy, but on admissible classes of aliens and the rights afforded to them. The president can't overrule those laws without a compelling emergent situation. His need to fulfill ridiculous campaign promises isn't one of them.

No doubt there is intelligence out there that points the finger at these five countries as being sources of threats. Isn't ISIS openly active in most of them? There's the threat. And those countries certainly don't have the capability to do the vetting that would make us feel safe.

None of us know the threat level, especially the judiciary, or have access to the decision-making process. We give that to the President and his team. If we are to effectively respond to threats, we must give them a lot of leeway. We don't want the courts interfering in this process. Just look at the fiasco this has become. Do we want this to be the norm in the future?

Is he fulfilling a campaign promise? Likely. Is he using intelligence to justify it? Likely. But wasn't that his argument? That the Obama team was weak on this issue in the face of the threat and that something needed to change? That, among other things, got him elected. He is acting on it, and has the authority to do so.

We can disagree, but he is the President. I've spent the past eight years disagreeing with most everything Obama did in the Middle East, but he was the President.

[BlueK]

No doubt there is intelligence out there that points the finger at these five countries as being sources of threats. Isn't ISIS openly active in most of them? There's the threat. And those countries certainly don't have the capability to do the vetting that would make us feel safe.

None of us know the threat level, especially the judiciary, or have access to the decision-making process. We give that to the President and his team. If we are to effectively respond to threats, we must give them a lot of leeway. We don't want the courts interfering in this process. Just look at the fiasco this has become. Do we want this to be the norm in the future?

Is he fulfilling a campaign promise? Likely. Is he using intelligence to justify it? Likely. But wasn't that his argument? That the Obama team was weak on this issue in the face of the threat and that something needed to change? That, among other things, got him elected. He is acting on it, and has the authority to do so.

We can disagree, but he is the President. I've spent the past eight years disagreeing with most everything Obama did in the Middle East, but he was the President.

Watch the clip I posted. The judge who granted the TRO seemed to think it was important that there hasn't yet been an actual act of terrorism committed so far from one of the seven countries mentioned in the EO. So the threat in this case is theoretical, and not one based on actual facts. But another problem is that there have been terrorist acts committed by foreigners, except they all came from countries not included in the ban. That's a logical problem for the courts, it appears -- or at least for that judge.

[myboynoah]

Watch the clip I posted. The judge who granted the TRO seemed to think it was important that there hasn't yet been an actual act of terrorism committed so far from one of the seven countries mentioned in the EO. So the threat in this case is theoretical, but another problem is that there have been terrorist acts committed by foreigners, except they all came from countries not included in the ban. That's a logical problem for the courts, it appears -- or at least for that judge.

Is that really the judge's logic? That's dumb dumb logic, and further evidence that he should stay out of security policy.

[Commando]

No doubt there is intelligence out there that points the finger at these five countries as being sources of threats. Isn't ISIS openly active in most of them? There's the threat. And those countries certainly don't have the capability to do the vetting that would make us feel safe.

None of us know the threat level, especially the judiciary, or have access to the decision-making process. We give that to the President and his team. If we are to effectively respond to threats, we must give them a lot of leeway. We don't want the courts interfering in this process. Just look at the fiasco this has become. Do we want this to be the norm in the future?

Is he fulfilling a campaign promise? Likely. Is he using intelligence to justify it? Likely. But wasn't that his argument? That the Obama team was weak on this issue in the face of the threat and that something needed to change? That, among other things, got him elected. He is acting on it, and has the authority to do so.

We can disagree, but he is the President. I've spent the past eight years disagreeing with most everything Obama did in the Middle East, but he was the President.

A lot of people with their names on the suit, such as John Kerry, for example, do have the same access to intelligence. This of course wouldn't be disclosed in the suit, but it would certainly be alluded to if it was the case. The vetting we are talking about needing comes through our own Department of State and it is incredibly thorough-- never do we rely on another country's vetting in other than an auxiliary role. Trump acts like there is no vetting at all and just anybody can get on a plane, and that "bad guys are pouring in." He can't just make things up and rule accordingly.

[myboynoah]

OMG!!!! Devos was confirmed!!!!

The world will end soon.

[myboynoah]

A lot of people with their names on the suit, such as John Kerry, for example, do have the same access to intelligence. This of course wouldn't be disclosed in the suit, but it would certainly be alluded to if it was the case. The vetting we are talking about needing comes through our own Department of State and it is incredibly thorough-- never do we rely on another country's vetting in other than an auxiliary role. Trump acts like there is no vetting at all and just anybody can get on a plane, and that "bad guys are pouring in." He can't just make things up and rule accordingly.

Actually, Kerry no longer has access to that information. Even so, are you surprised that people differ on the appropriate response to information and threats?

The guy was elected President.

[Commando]

OMG!!!! Devos was confirmed!!!!

The world will end soon.

Every vote for her should equal a turnover at the end of a term.

[BlueK]

So do we all agree whatever the final outcome is by having gone through the judicial process there should be no mocking the judges or protesting against the decision.

I promise I won't be out on the streets throwing bottles through shop windows. I respect the process and I'm happy the courts get to review whether the President is allowed to unilaterally declare a ban.

But I do think it's interesting to speculate on what Trump will then do if he loses, and especially if the Supreme Court sends back a message -- like say an 8-0 decision against the ban. Not saying that will happen, but we know the 4 liberals will not vote in favor. The problem is the conservatives tend to be Constitutional originalists who place a high value on the concept of separation of powers, so I can actually see them siding with the liberals on this one. We'll see.

[Commando]

Actually, Kerry no longer has access to that information. Even so, are you surprised that people differ on the appropriate response to information and threats?

The guy was elected President.

I'm not giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on this. He didn't even know what was in the order.

[BlueK]

OMG!!!! Devos was confirmed!!!!

The world will end soon.

No one really cares about who heads the Dept. of Education, but her answers at the hearings didn't make her look very good. Oh well. Not a great impact, IMO.

[byu71]

I promise I won't be out on the streets throwing bottles through shop windows. I respect the process and I'm happy the courts get to review whether the President is allowed to unilaterally declare a ban.

But I do think it's interesting to speculate on what Trump will then do if he loses, and especially if the Supreme Court sends back a message -- like say an 8-0 decision against the ban. Not saying that will happen, but we know the 4 liberals will not vote in favor. The problem is the conservatives tend to be Constitutional originalists who place a high value on the concept of separation of powers, so I can actually see them siding with the liberals on this one. We'll see.

If it gets to the Supreme Court and they rule against him I hope but doubt he will accept it and move on. If he keeps mocking judges after that I will hope a Dr. judges him mentally unqualified. If he instructs those under him to ignore the court ruling, I will be with all of you who want to impeach him.

[myboynoah]

I'm not giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on this. He didn't even know what was in the order.

I'm not asking you to do so. I'm just saying that he is President and is empowered to do what he is doing. And that giving the courts a role in security policy is not a good precedent to set.

Sadly, elections have consequences.

[byu71]

General Kelly is testifying before Congress. I will try to listen or read transcripts. Not sure I trust the spins and edidting that will come from the media, including Fox.

What Kelly says has far more weighing with me than does Kerry, State Atty's who are dems or any has beens like Albright.

[myboynoah]

No one really cares about who heads the Dept. of Education, but her answers at the hearings didn't make her look very good. Oh well. Not a great impact, IMO.

Agreed. What a crazy place to plant the Dem flag.

I just heard a commentator on CNN say that this vote will stick with those voting to confirm for a long time. Really? Unless Devos is a total disaster, no one will care in 6 months.