verneforchat

Examples please?
 
In case you have forgotten:
 
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
 
And remember we are talking about LITERAL readings of that sentence only. No interpretations. As you said, it is "under attack" from the left. Please provide examples of where the left has attacked the LITERAL meaning of that sentence.
 
I'll give you a hint - Focus on "Congress shall make no law..."

What alternate universe did this happen in?
 

"Forgotten men and women will never be forgotten again'
 
Except the persecuted Jews on holocaust day.

What alternate universe did this happen in?
 

Why don't you actually respond to the arguments instead of just make grandiose statements?
 
The 1st Amendment states only that the government will not pass laws infringing on the free exercise of religion, or supporting the establishment of a particular religion. That is all. That is the literal meaning.
 
Conservatives have tried to "bend" that to mean that a Mom and Pop shop that makes fried chicken can choose not to sell to someone because they are gay. That is an interpretation. That is not "the constitution". 

Unfortunately neither group (Dems/GOP) cares that much about the constitution. Just how they can bend it to their will.
 
Conservatives are excited because they know the judge will interpret the constitution in a way that supports their conservative ideals. I've already cited an example where that is happening with the 1st amendment. Allowing people to discriminate based on their "1st amendment freedom of religion" is an interpretation of the constitution that supports conservative ideals. That is not written in the constitution literally. 
 
As for the 2nd amendment - It is literally a sentence long. A literal interpretation is merely that people can keep and bear arms. Great, that says nothing about what kind of arms they can keep. If we want to think literally why don't we only allow people to keep 18th century muskets? Wouldn't that be most appropriate?

I'm sorry this particular judge is not "legislating from the bench" and an "activist" judge in this scenario. He granted a temporary restraining order so the case can be discussed/reviewed because he believes the states' case against the ban has merit. There is no decision on overturning the ban or the constitutionality of it yet, just merely that it is on hold until the case can be taken to court. The criteria to be put on hold has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the ban itself, it is just that 1. The states MAY have a case and 2. Continuing the ban until the case is heard would cause "irreparable harm". He decided that they met those two requirements, so instituted the TRO. You can argue with that, but that is his right as a federal judge. That isn't legislation, that is his judiciary responsibility. 
 
More broadly (not about this case specifically) - The argument that the "left leaning" judges are the only ones that "reinterpret" the constitution is just hogwash. The right have been trying to "interpret" the 1st amendment so that it allows people to discriminate. That is absolutely an "interpretation" and not a literal reading of the 1st amendment. The problem is the constitution is actually not a very long document, and it is quite vague. We have to interpet it. A literal reading of it would leave too many unanswered questions.
 
This ignores the other valid argument that a document written 200+ years ago and before the industrial revolution is something that should only be read literally and never be changed or updated. We have to move with the times or our country will be just a blip in the history of humanity. 

Stand up. Have a little dignity. Wipe off your chin. 

If only someone could have foreseen this. If only there was some way to predict Trumps lack of respect for the courts based on his lack of respect for everything.  

Oh god, I hate the "McDonald's is always hiring, don't be picky!" sentences coming out of ignorant people mouths. No, they are not. I used to work for MickeyD's, they are nowhere always hiring. They do sometimes, like regular places do.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Femke said, especially the last sentences. " When an immigrant has to obey the same laws, s/he should also be protected by the same laws." .. so who's going to write Trump?!

While I guess Rubio's tweet isn't completely clear, but when I read it I thought he was speaking specifically of domestic political opponents. That the GOP/Democrats don't poison each other to get ahead. I think I read it that way because wasn't using "poison" something that recently came up about Putin and a few Russian political opponents? 
 
Putin has at least allegedly done that (and if we are all really honest it is probably all true).

Did you just copy paste this from reddit?
 
I saw these exact two sentences posted earlier. I remember it so well because the downvoting completely destroyed that comment.

Did you just copy paste this from reddit?
 
I saw these exact two sentences posted earlier. I remember it so well because the downvoting completely destroyed that comment.

Rubio came out against this. Finally someone with a spine. 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-fires-back-at-trump-when-have-our-politicians-poisoned-opponents/article/2613952
 
 
"Sen. Marco Rubio defended the United States after President Trump, in response to a question about alleged murders carried out by the Russian state, questioned America's innocence.
"When has a Democratic political activists been poisoned by the GOP, or vice versa? We are not the same as #Putin," the Florida Republican tweeted Sunday."
 
So Rubio admits that Putin poisons his opponents. Rubio better look after his tea/coffee/beverages.

Trump's been a little distracted. With enough time he'll get the nukes flying no problem. He'll only be useful to Putin for so long.

Good Lord. Please put a 'bitter beer face' alert in the tag line if you're going to do that.

What alternate universe did this happen in?
 

Pakistani Passport Holders can acquire Visa On Arrival on Palau or Maldives.
Both are awesome destinations for vacation especially if you like beaches.
 
http://akhbarnama.com/visa-requirement-countries-pakistani-passport-holders-167.html

No amount of "selective editing" changes a sentence spoken by a person. 
 
If you watch the video, he clearly stated that the Judge has the right. He then goes on to say that they will fight it and try to get it changed. 
 
Honestly that is just a much more mature way to look at the situation. Trump needs to learn from other people. Instead of insulting the judge, just admit that this is all perfectly reasonable/legal but you just happen to disagree and will fight it. As much as I don't like Pence's opinions on a lot of things, at least he acts like an adult.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317958-pence-judge-certainly-has-right-to-halt-ban
 
let the break between pence and trump begin...

Appeals court: No travel ban for now.

It might help to actually read the TRO. In the written version the key paragraph is below: (Had to type it out myself since it's a pdf and I can't copy/paste)
 
"Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as "parens patriae" of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the states themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the executive order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases and public funds. These harms are significant and ongoing. Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessarily until such time as the court can hear and decide the States' request for a preliminary injunction."
 
So I think one thing to keep in mind is the burden required to place a TEMPORARILY retraining order is likely different than the burden to reverse the EO completely. The judge is arguing there is enough cause to temporarily stop it so that the courts can further decide.
 
EDIT:
 
As for the "but other people did it before!" argument, people need to reenter the real world. That is a lie, plan and simple. Obama did not "ban" Iraqi's. Every single month during the 6 month period Iraqis continued to be granted visas. There was no ban. That is truth, move on.