Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (624910)	2/6/2017 7:05:18 PM
From: Mrjns	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

Possibly. But if the DOJ lawyers hits them hard there is no way they can rule otherwise. The Seattle goof made so many errors in his rationale. Wrongly claimed that there no attacks/arrests here by people from those countries. Even if that were true, the point is to prevent those attacks here like the ones we saw in Paris, Nice, Berlin etc. David Horowitz is calling for an impeachment of that Judge.. worth a shot. ..make an example of one of these activist punks

To: LindyBill who wrote (624910)	2/6/2017 7:14:34 PM
From: Alan Smithee	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

This request for an oral argument tomorrow is bad news for Trump, IMO. The case is so cut and dried that they should have thrown out the stay today. What do you expect? It's the 9th Circuit. Any idea who is on the panel? Edit: A number of Amici briefs filed: ca9.uscourts.gov

To: LindyBill who wrote (624910)	2/9/2017 3:26:43 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

There's never an argument which doesn't need legions of lawyers. As long as the money keeps coming, there are more arguments and bits and pieces to argue and higher courts to appeal to. The Supreme Court will need to weigh in to show how they are the most important of the powers that be and not to be trifled with when it comes to what's constitutional and what's not. The argument that banning Moslems is a religious test is absurd as the basis for the test is the belief in jihad and therefore conquest of the USA and compulsory conversion of the population to Islam or dhimmitude or worse and the imposition of sharia law in place of constitutional law. Even if it was a religious test, the right to immigrate is not subject to a religious test. Mqurice