The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
You'd hope this will be something that transcends liberal-conservative lines, though.
You'd hope, but you can never be too hopeful of the other four. If he's not on the court it should uphold the lower court's ruling, if he is then it's unclear how it'll go.

On another note, the court rulings so far are making Sally Yates' decision not to enforce it look all the more justified.
 
but there was a republican in the 3-some?

How can he be so confident in the SC when it will likely end 4-4? Will his nominee be in place by then?

Yes, the first judge that granted the injunction last week was appointed by Dubya. Another judge (1 of the 3 from the other day) was also appointed by Dubya. Both GOP appointed and both ruled against Drumpf.
 
Trump apparently just told reporters off camera that the decision is political. Another jab at the judiciary.
Not apparently...he straight out said 'political decision'. The damage he's doing is incredible.

He has every right to not like the decision.

But this is the response you expect - 'we are very disappointed with the decision by the 9th Circuit court. We will take our case to the Supreme Court, where we hope to get a better result'.

Instead - he's ranting and raving :(
 
You'd hope, but you can never be too hopeful of the other four. If he's not on the court it should uphold the lower court's ruling, if he is then it's unclear how it'll go.

On another note, the court rulings so far are making Sally Yates' decision not to enforce it looking all the more justified.

Perhaps, although considering Trump's previous wording suggesting a religious ban seems to have been taken into consideration...you'd think one or two of the Conservative justices who value religious rights in the constitution will interpret it in the same manner. Even just one or two of them doing so would be enough.
 
He always struck me as a bit too partisan. For example, he was very heavy handed in pursuing Hillary on all kinds of investigations but has so far been pretty muted on Trump, his taxes, conflicts of interest, Russian interference etc. So for him to come down on KellyAnne, it must be pretty bad.

what must be pretty bad?
 
Not apparently...he straight out said 'political decision'. The damage he's doing is incredible.

He has every right to not like the decision.

But this is the response you expect - 'we are very disappointed with the decision by the 9th Circuit court. We will take our case to the Supreme Court, where we hope to get a better result'.

Instead - he's ranting and raving :(

I suspect his voters love his kind of response and think your more civilised suggestion is from neo-liberals who cant be trusted.
 
what must be pretty bad?

Because he's a Republican and has generally only gone after Dems in the past. For him to go after KellyAnne is pretty conspicuous, especially since he just visited Trump for a meeting in the White House a few days ago.
 
Because he's a Republican and has generally only gone after Dems in the past. For him to go after KellyAnne is pretty conspicuous, especially since he just visited Trump for a meeting in the White House a few days ago.
I guess she's viewed as expendable, post-election.
 
I guess she's viewed as expendable, post-election.

I think it'll be quite funny in the Trump admin years when all the infighting results in people who started to think they were going to hold extremely important roles end up finding themselves kicked to the curb.
 
Because he's a Republican and has generally only gone after Dems in the past. For him to go after KellyAnne is pretty conspicuous, especially since he just visited Trump for a meeting in the White House a few days ago.

He probably realised after talking to Trump for 5 minutes just how serious the situation is.
 
This is the Washington State AG atm-


nxMBqb4
 
Because he's a Republican and has generally only gone after Dems in the past. For him to go after KellyAnne is pretty conspicuous, especially since he just visited Trump for a meeting in the White House a few days ago.
Will KellyAnne have to attend some sort of public live TV tribunal? Will make fun viewing!
 
Depends how quickly Gorsuch gets confirmed.

This is religion though. I expect someone to switch from the other side - Kennedy or Roberts or maybe even one of Thomas or whats-his-name. Kennedy wrote the decision cited in this judgement.
 
tRump still thinks 'its a decision we'll easily win' because 9th court 'was political'.

Where does he get such confidence?
 
This is religion though. I expect someone to switch from the other side - Kennedy or Roberts or maybe even one of Thomas or whats-his-name. Kennedy wrote the decision cited in this judgement.
Thomas and Alito won't change...they'll do the we'll defer to the 'national security' concern.

Kennedy or CJ Roberts are potential flips.
 
BTW: Serious honest question .....

Is America suddenly a lot more unsafe in the few weeks since Obama left?
Im assuming new intel that tRump has seen suggest it is, and thats why he so hot and bovvered about this?
 
BTW: Serious honest question .....

Is America suddenly a lot more unsafe in the few weeks since Obama left?
Im assuming new intel that tRump has seen suggest it is, and thats why he so hot and bovvered about this?
I've been thinking the press needs to be asking if he's started to implement the plan to improve security already. These delays shouldn't interfere with that.
 
Is America suddenly a lot more unsafe in the few weeks since Obama left?
Probably not, but Trump will gladly lie that America is on fire & that only he and his golden shower of acolytes will pee on the flames and save us all.
 
:lol: thats perfect. its like us beating liverpool 3-0 and neville tweeting it to carragher

How long until Trump comes out with this?
"I was surprised by what has been said, but maybe the courts are nervous because we are in power.

"But I want to talk about facts. I want to be clear, I do not want to play mind games too early, although they seem to want to start. But I have seen some facts. On 9 November, the Democrats lost the election and Mr Obama started accusing the Russians of deliberately interfering for me.

"We started the Make America Great Again campaign, and that was when the women's protest was set out at the White House. My advisor [Steve Bannon] was there when I got inaugurated – he could not see me discriminating against women, he did think there should be any penalty. They lost the election and they started marching after it.

"During the Make America Great Again campaign – and this is a fact – Mrs Clinton was investigated by the FBI for improper conduct after emails she sent. She was not punished. She is the only politician in the country that cannot be punished for these things.

"Then she was talking about the harassment allegations. A year ago I was running for President and her husband was dicking bimbos. And we didn't say anything. Now she is complaining about everything, that everybody is against the Democrats. But the presidential administration will see them out of power. It is a fantastic advantage.

"But at Christmas, Obama accused the Russians of helping me. We were away on my golf course two days after talking to John Bolton. They were complaining about Russians after the election, just before.

"And their behaviour with American voters. The Southern people know how Mr Obama works and how he works, he was very clear. I am not playing mind games, just facts.

"If he wants to talk about Russian hacking, and have a level playing field as you say in the US. There are two options if we don't want more problems with Russian hacking. One is the same as in Russia, the draw for the first part of the election is know, everyone knows who wins. In the second half everyone votes for me, so you all know. CNN and Fox have the right to choose which victory speeches they air and it will be the same for everyone. So Mr Obama will not be complaining about Russian hacking and a campaign against Democrats.

"Or there is another option. That Mr Obama organises the Russian hacking in his office and sends it to us and everyone will know and cannot complain. That is simple.

"We know what happens every time we go to Obama's house and the Democrats staff. They are always going man to man with the voters, especially at election time when they walk close to the voters and they are talking and talking.

"All voters need to know is that only Mr Obama can talk about the Russian hacking, can talk about and nothing happens.

"We need to know that I am talking about facts, not my impression. There are things that everyone can see every single week.

"Are they under pressure? Maybe they were not thinking that we would be in the Oval Office in January. But we are in the Oval Office and they are nervous

"I am not telling the authorities what to do. But I have been here for three weeks and know how things are going on. I will be watching Sanders' debate with Cruz. The result does not matter to us, if we win at the Supreme Court the result does not matter.

"I was surprised Democrats wanted to start the mind games too early, maybe it is because we are in power. But I only wanted to explain our position.

"It is a massive difference to ban Muslims early on a Saturday, say, after a European election in midweek. But they will complain about us when not in power, and that is a massive advantage to them.

"They cannot complain about the Russian hacking after they were complaining on 29 December while I golfed on the 28th.

"I have decided that I had a lot of information and I have been watching every single week what has been going on. Then they started talking about us, but every single week we know they will be talking. But we want to stay at the top and maybe they will talk about us right to the end.

"To hear someone talking when he has problems with Russian hacking every single week, and now complaining about everything, I think that is not fair.

"You can see every single week how they put [me] under pressure, we know this. We have seen it before. We have Democrats fillbuster and we do not see our opponents sent off. It is part of the game. But to complain and to always have an advantage is not fair.

"We had a meeting in Washington with senators and Supreme Court about the Make America Great Again campaign. And I was very clear, forget the campaign because Mr Obama was killing the voters, killing Mr Bannon, killing Mr Pence. But he is not punished. How can you talk about the Make America Great Again campaign and criticise the voters every single week? You can analyse the facts and come to your own decision and ideas."
 
Alan Dershowitz saying Trump should rewrite the EO...almost sounded like he wanted to write it for him and also said...we should have discriminatory immigration laws like Arab countries.
 
Thomas and Alito won't change...they'll do the we'll defer to the 'national security' concern.

Kennedy or CJ Roberts are potential flips.

I forgot his argument is national security. Yes, you're 100% right in that case.
 
Alan Dershowitz saying Trump should rewrite the EO...almost sounded like he wanted to write it for him and also said...we should have discriminatory immigration laws like Arab countries.
How can it be re-written without being over-ruled? Don't see how it can be vs what is already in place.
 
Is the Iraq war Al Gore's fault?
irrelevant comparison. Bush was noway close to Trump as a 'controversial should be beaten' candidate.
I dont think its controversial to say that Hilary royally screwed up and lost an election she should have walked.
And whilst he is shocking, none of Trumps actions are surprising. He is doing what many warned against.
So a lot of this is Hillary's fault (IMO)
 
Last edited:
How can it be re-written without being over-ruled? Don't see how it can be vs what is already in place.

It can be rewritten with certain caveats - for example, instead of citizens from the 7 said countries, it could be citizens from those countries who have had affiliations with certain political movements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.