Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Has the order been withdrawn and/or changed? If not, then it still covers green card and visa holders. Trump wants the order to cover current visa holders, so that point has not been resolved.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Say what?I answered your question as asked. As for what you "haven't seen", you have demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of making any constitutional analysis, and you don't trust the ones you can find.Trump has to resolve the issue because it has been raised in court and an injunction has been issued based on the court's reading of the law. Not your reading which ignores the constitution and the fact that even green card holders and visa holders have a right to due process, but the court's reading.

Ringo, your original claim included the idea that under Canadian law, self-defense was a mitigating factor that could reduce your penalty under the law. That claim was wrong. Beyond that, if you cannot be charged with a crime, then quite obviously self-defense was not an issue, right?You are correct that self-defense may not be a natural right in Canada, but self-defense being used if you are charged with a crime is exactly the same as the state of affairs in the United States. Self-defense does not just mitigate a crime; when self-defense applies, it completely excuses the use of force; and possibly even the use of deadly force. Further, in Canada, the state is required to disprove self-defense, which is not the way things work in most jurisdictions in the US.Not natural law? Who cares?

It's not as though no such reasoning has been presented. Amusing.

I don't hate you. I won't speak for everyone here, but I suspect that almost nobody posting here hates you. As for your posts, I love reading those. Your posts actually reinforce beliefs I hold about the far right and fundamentalists, so why wouldn't I like them?

Lol! There was never such a situation. The colonies inherited case law from the British system. Over time, the development of additional precedent plus the adoption of a constitution and the passage of legislation has caused our law to diverge from British jurisprudence, but every single jurisdiction that has evolved from a British heritage has employed, and continues to employ, common law. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is not just an assertion; it is a statement backed up by the Canadian code on self-defense. I've already quoted the relevant law, but here it is again:

quote:

---

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

​

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

---

Now, are you willing to support your claim that the law only mitigates your criminal liability rather than excusing it with something other than assertion? What do you think justification means?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Appeals court blocks Trump bid to reinstate immigration order - ABC News

quote:

---

We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay, the panel, from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in the decision Thursday.

---

There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Muslims. I don't know what anyone has said that could be taken otherwise, but I have not anything of the sort. There is a problem, however, with taking folks who are already vetted and packing them off to places where they may have little or no ties, without letting them consult a lawyer or to have any hearing whatsoever.There may be some groups of Muslims for which the vetting need be no different from that applied to anyone else who asked either for asylum or to enter the country. But even those folks, if they are current green card holders or are students admitted on a visa, who have been vetted, and simply left the country to visit mom and dad on fall break, ought to have a hearing, possibly even with an attorney present before they are packed off for months.I don't know where you get your ideas about what most of us are saying, but it certainly is not from our posts. Maybe your ideas flow freely from your ill-informed assumptions about what sleazy, lying, PC, lefties are about. At any rate, at least your ideas are entertaining but wrong. I want to hear more of them. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Where is your argument? Surely a bunch of conservative folks talking about disagreements between executive and the courts isn't an argument. Surely pointing out that Lincoln was wrong does not support the idea that Trump is correct. Do you think presidents should be able to arrests judges? Do you believe the constitution supports such a thing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, Rrhain, that is true. But I answered a question about Muslims specifically and addressed a particular lie that the Faith was spouting about what had been discussed here. Of course. My statement, taken in context does not need fixing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What format would you want to get it in?I find it hilarious that you aren't sure exactly what the conservative reasoning is, but you are sure that you will agree with it once you find it. Who acts like that?

"The conservative point of view"?Assuming that there is some monolithic view, or at least a conservative majority view, presenting that would be a very productive thing to do; assuming that the point of view includes the legal reasoning to back up the conservative position. I would find that hugely helpful even if I ultimately end up disagreeing. Sigh,You've already told us that you expect to agree with the conservative opinion. I just wonder if you'll ever have any legal reasoning to back up your opinion. Muslims suck isn't going to carry the day for me at least. What's left for you other than finding some rationale that is not totally wingnut.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your "Truly Conservative" idea had crossed my mind. Clearly, having conservative leaning judges reach the same opinion as the other judges is a fact that only raises questions those judges real right-mindedness and conservative bona fides.

Nice try Faith.We know that wingnuts don't want Muslims in this country. I know that you can find other wingnuts who agree with you. You are not alone. I suppose that is some comfort to you. Now what would be great to see, if you can provide it, is any legal leg for those opinions to stand on.What you posted is very lean on any argument. Of the statements in the quoted section, only one is remotely close to an argument rather than insult and attacks on the court without presenting any analysis. Really, an argument for not keeping Jews out, or not exercising an executive power to discriminate against someone is relevant how exactly? Remember the complaint is that due process is being violated. How does admitting folks violate their due process rights?Can you distinguish between an argument and a bunch of blowhards just complaining? I certainly can. I know that you don't require any argument to be persuaded of what you already know to be true, but this is a debate not an assertion exchange.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.