monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. It held that "...the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

You missed the key word, "congress."

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Standing at the lectern, Trump read aloud title eight, chapter 12 of U.S. Code which states: "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 non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."

"This isn't just me, this is for Obama, for Ronald Reagan, for the president," Trump said. "It was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens."

I will concede that the long-time bureaucratic attorney, probably a democrat who's heart wasn't in it, made a very poor showing in arguing Trump's case before the appellate court.

I remember when you didn't like Trump. At the time I thought you were quite principled, but I guess political expediency Trumps all.

You have to wonder how this might effect voting in the state and LA in general... They already show no fear in breaking the law to do what they want to do, what actually keeps them from voting at this point? Fake ID's that show them to be legal US residents or fake ID's used to get Green Cards. Shut it all down and start from scratch with all suspected GC holders. Start with that guys family and friends.

The funny thing about this unanimous decision from the 3 judge panel was that TRUMP himself needs to take a big dose of STFU if he ever wants to get anything through the courts. As a result of this decsion , an an issue of stare decisis, the court reaffirmed that "IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW the actions and orders of the president.
Trump had :
1 Used poor wording for this EO (apparently his ADD just defaulted to one of his toadies who would have to write the damn thing, thus assuring that it would become a first amendment issue, to which Trump only set up nicely by his idiotic regal tweets
2 Used poor judgement by Stating that his orders are "unassailable by the judiciary" in matters of protection of the homeland, merely provoked the added statements by the panel.

At least hes entertaining, so long as he doesnt get us in to a shooting war with his moronic jovian ego.

wmwcjr wrote:

I remember when you didn't like Trump. At the time I thought you were quite principled, but I guess political expediency Trumps all.

"Principled," Bill?

You don't have to approve of Hillary Clinton, as a person, to agree with her policies.

Same with respect to Trump, needless to say.

"Principles," by their very nature, do NOT depend on "personality."

I want the GOP to succeed on their repeal of ACA. It will destroy their party when they take away health care from 16 million people, many who will die without health insurance.

How many deaths will you cheer on in your path to decimate the republicans?

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon, wrote last week. "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer.”

“Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."

“Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. But some of it is something trickier:…

“Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. Pessimism is the dirty little secret of the antiwar camp -- dirty because there is something distasteful about wishing for bad outcomes.”