I wondered this, too.

What if the ban was overturned so that Muslims could be rounded up like what happened to the Japanese courtesy of the executive order of 2-19-1942.

Not saying it's true, but it's an interesting thought.

Muslims could be rounded up like what happened to the Japanese

One is religious, the other is race, I know it's a splitting hairs comment, but.......

Muslims are the target of the ban... I'm not sure how what I said is negated in any conceivable way, shape, or form. I didn't choose to ban Muslims.

I'm not sure how what I said is negated in any conceivable way, shape, or form. I didn't choose to ban Muslims.

Is Muslim a race or a religion, is being Japanese a race or is it a religion, this is not a grey area, I have yet to hear anything about them being an Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan, Somalian or a Yemen citizen.

Again, I didn't call it a Muslim ban, trump and the media did.

They don't need the pretext of the ban to round up immigrants, so why bother? I think it's just Trump throwing raw meat to his base.

I don't think Trump has the capacity in any sense of the word to plan a false flag in his first two active weeks. I think the ban was purely a move to pander to his supporters without regard to how impractical and badly designed it was. Only in that sense was it "designed" to be overturned. I can however see the CIA capitalizing on this opportunity because they probably have multiple false flags on the backburner at any given time. 2 cents.

I don't think Trump has the capacity in any sense of the word to plan a false flag in his first two active weeks.

This is why it would work so well if it happened though. Not saying it would happen, just toying with ideas here.

I mean, did GWB have enough gumption on his own to pull off that false flag in 9 months? (you know, if 9/11 was indeed a false flag).

It sure did hide the tech bubble burst, though, didn't it? We have a lot of bubbles about to burst.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just toying with trains of thought.

Keep in mind that Trump stole the Republican nomination... this could have been the Republicans gentle reminding Trump that he doesn't really know what he is doing either, and he's relying on a lot of people doing what he directs them to.

I think the establishment has been trying to give Trump a spanking from the beginning, and I think the EO was definitely the beginning of that.

Completely ignoring white nationalist lone wolves doesn't help either...

Just look it up on google. What defines a terrorist? What defines a mass shooting? What defines a radical religious person? What defines a radical Christian or Jew or Muslim? What defines a white nationalist?

All of these labels are used to divide us all, and to make sure the citizens of this country turn on eachother and our God-given liberties in order for the President to "protect us all" from the baddies. We are all idiots for following their game of security over liberty.

Mass violence with a political agenda behind it is pretty much the definition of terrorism. Not sure how a "white nationalists mass shooting" could not be an act of terrorism.

I'm more concerned that it was an "Ask for 10 when you really want 9" kind of thing. Focus all of the outrage on the green card stuff so when it's dropped and everyone against it is exhausted the totally-not-a-Muslim-ban slips through.

It is also Trump's pacing and leading strat.

I hold a firm belief that every promise he made before the election was garbage. Even the wall is garbage. They're all grandiose promises that are plausible if not possible. But he has no intention of doing it. Make Mexico pay for a wall? Are you kidding? There's no way. But it forces them to come to the table. If they don't, he'll build it and send them the bill. If they don't pay, he'll find another way to leverage it.

But as some kind of Republican monument against immigration? Give me a break. Fuck all does a wall have to do with anything? Trump knows this. It's just his way of telling Mexico he's going to be bullheaded about it.

That's not far off how I feel haha.

I also thought this. Trump seemed to even suggest it on Twitter.

Would you mind pointing me to the tweet if you have it handy?

The purpose of the ban is to force the hand of Congressional Democrats.

It's a knife to their neck to confirm Gorsuch.

If Democrats truly believe that the Travel Ban Executive Order is unconstitutional, then their best interests is to confirm Gorsuch without obstruction, let it play out in court, and hope they win.

The alternative; Obstruction under these conditions is a Trump that is under pressure and a short time frame - Trump will have Congressional Republicans use the nuclear option without hesitation.

If the Democrats obstruct, then Republicans use the nuclear option, nominate Gorsuch, and then the Supreme Court upholds Trumps Executive Order on the immigration ban. Democrats lose on 3 separate fronts simultaneously.

The outcome of this specific Executive Order is moot in Trump's eyes. If it gets shot down, he writes a new EO explicitly excluding green card holders.

I think it was designed to be struck down, but only for force a precedent to be set that be can then follow the letter to ban anyone he wants for as long as he wants.

Trump according to his supporters.

Amazing insight

judge in Washington State gets wind of the attack (say he has a kid in the military that can't STFU), and brings an injunction to stop the attack.

The Judge in Seattle can't possibly rule on the attack, because he doesn't have access to all the information the President has. There are many things that courts have no authority to review. A Travel Ban (either temporary or permanent) is one of those things.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used to have the reputation as being the most overturned Federal Court in America. Based out of San Francisco, they typically have a faaaaar more leftist interpretation of the Constitution than most.

Of the 9th Circuit Courts Rulings that are heard by the Supreme Court, 8 out of 10 (80%) of their rulings are overturned. Not saying that 80% of ALL 9th Circuit Rulings are overturned. Just 80% of all that are challenged and heard by Supreme Court. Not a good record of Jurisprudence! The Washington Judge Involved and the 9th Circuit have along history of Judicial Activism (instead of Constitutional Interpretation as they should have).

Based on Title2 of the US Constitution, the President has the authority to ban (either temporarily or permanently) the people from ANY country or countries, if he deems it in the best interests of the United States. What the local and 9th Circuits did was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No person who is not a citizen of the United States has a RIGHT* to enter this country. In 1979, when the Iranian Revolution occurred. President Carter immediately revokes ALL Visas of anybody from Iran (students were told to get out immediately), and stops anybody from Iran entering the United States.

Neither a local nor Circuit Court has the right to review ANY travel ban authorized by the President, for a very good reason: The President has access to classified information the Courts don't.

EXAMPLE: Imagine, a Libyan Spy plants a bomb on a US Civilian Aircraft. We know that because we have a mole in the Libyan Government that says General Gaddafi personally authorized the bombing, and sends a video of the meeting as evidence. As a response, the President authorizes an Air Strike on a terrorist training camp in Tripoli, Libya. A judge in Washington State gets wind of the attack (say he has a kid in the military that can't STFU), and brings an injunction to stop the attack. The Judge in Seattle can't possibly rule on the attack, because he doesn't have access to all the information the President has. There are many things that courts have no authority to review. A Travel Ban (either temporary or permanent) is one of those things.

Neither a local nor Circuit Court has the right to review ANY travel ban authorized by the President

I suppose your law degree is from Trump University.

Name checks out

....and instead of showing me where I was wrong, you make an ignorant comment.

It is actually Section 1182 of Title 8 of the US Code:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

PERIOD. Now, show me different or STFU

Also, Section 1201 of Title 8 expressly provides that the secretary of State (who is, of course, accountable directly to the president) “may at any time, in his discretion, revoke” any visa already issued. The statute also provides that “There shall be no means of judicial review of a revocation” of visas under the law, “except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal.”

First, maybe read the sentence after the one you bolded.

Second, a law existing does not make it "unconstitutional" for a court to challenge it. That is ridiculous. See how I did that without caps lock?

You might want to understand what you read. If the revocation of a visa provides the SOLE ground for removal. The President has stated that in the interest of National Security would be the reason for revocation. They aren't just wantonly revoking visas. If done, it would be done for the safety of the citizens of the United States, and again, In the Interest of National Security.

You can blow smoke (and whomever else you want to blow), but you can't argue with the Constitution. Now, go slam some more tweak.

Even though judicial review means a hearing for each visa revoked, not that the judicial branch isn't allowed to rule on that law. That should be clearly obvious if you understand separation of powers. Do you really think congress can just declare a law above adjudication?

Second, a law existing does not make it "unconstitutional" for a court to challenge it. That is ridiculous. See how I did that without caps lock?

The rest of the comment you didn't read. Judicial review means that the executive doesn't have to take the revokee to court (IE due process.) It doesn't mean that the court is not allowed to challenge the law, congress does not have that power.

Look, no insults. Its simple. The President is authorized under Section 1182 of Title 8 of the US Code to stop entry into the United States of ANYBODY not a citizen for any reason he/she deems is in the best interests of the United States.

Lower courts don't have clearance to access much of the Intelligence the President uses to make his decisions in this respect, so it does not make ANY sense for them to be able to review any matters of this nature.

Like I posted previously. President Carter went much farther than Fratboy Trump is doing. He revoked the visas of EVERY Iranian in America. There was a group of college students from Connecticut (I believe) who went to Canada for a field trip. They couldn't get back across the border.

Also (as I posted previously) this is only preventing the Temporary Part of the travel ban. The full ban doesn't go into effect for about three months. The reasoning for the current temporary ban is to stop terrorists from bum rushing the border to get in ahead of the permanent restrictions that will go into effect.

The Supreme Court has already ruled several times on this type of issue, and EVERY TIME has sided with the White House. All the lower courts are doing is stalling to get in as many people as they can before the real restrictions hit in (about) 90 days. When that happens, all this shit will be moot. IDK, maybe Trump is REALLY doing this to see who in the Justice Dept is not going with his programs, so he can give them all the boot before he starts digging his heels in.

I honestly think the real reason he lost in the Ninth Circuit is the idiot he had arguing the case. Did you hear the guy. He was a stumbling muttering mess.

Part of me feels it was to appease his voters knowing it wouldn't hold up. The other part of me has no idea. I'm getting to the point where I really don't care anymore. It's all bread & circus. Shits going to play out regardless of what I think.

I absolutely believe this.

........and the main reason the 9th Circuit left the stay on the ban, was because the government couldn't show any REAL RISKS refugees from the "Trump 7" Countries posed:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

OOOOPS!