Karen Handel defeats Democratic opponent in the hotly contested Georgia special election

[Running Gator]

41 minutes ago, Blueyedjewel said:

Your not knowing facts does not make them alleged. You can check out the necessary resources to verify.  It is documented!! 

The travel ban is not unconstitutional. It is the same as obama, bush,clinton, reagan put forth in their terms. It is DOCUMENTED HISTORY.  If I am going to talk about things with you I am going to have to insist that you know your facts first.   Are you a christian? Is it your responsibility to err on the side of truth? Nuff said.

According to the courts, the travel ban is unconstitutional, that is the only fact that is relevant at this time.  

Whether you think it is unconstitutional or not is a fact but just your opinion.  

If you are going to demand facts, you need to stick to them yourself. 

[Running Gator]

Just now, Cobalt1959 said:

In point of fact, no, it is not.  Since, as has been mentioned before, Obama, Carter, etc. have instituted the same kind of travel ban, and it was not unconstitutional then, it is not unconstitutional now.  Just because one Liberal Judge deems it so does not amount to a consensus on the issue, just a halt to it.  Even an ACLU lawyer said it was not unconstitutional.  When even an ACLU lawyer tells you that you are sick, maybe you'd better lay down. 

None of that really matters.  Point of fact, OJ is innocent, thanks to the jury, even though we all know better.  

The courts decided what is unconstitutional, everything else is just people who do not matter opinions.   

I am sure that SCOTUS will hear the case one of these days and then we will find out once and for all.

But right now, the fact is that it has been ruled unconstitutional

[MorningGlory]

47 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

In point of fact, no, it is not.  Since, as has been mentioned before, Obama, Carter, etc. have instituted the same kind of travel ban, and if it was not unconstitutional then, it is not unconstitutional now.  Just because one Liberal Judge deems it so does not amount to a consensus on the issue, just a halt to it. Even an ACLU lawyer said it was not unconstitutional.  When even an ACLU lawyer tells you that you are sick, maybe you'd better lay down. 

It's only unconstitutional to the left.  And that is because it doesn't agree with their antiAmerican agenda.

[wingnut-]

6 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Aside from appointing Gorsuch, what has Trump actually done?

 

To me, this is the best thing President Trump has done to date, in particular section 2 which I put in bold.

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 04, 2017

Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2.  Respecting Religious and Political Speech.  All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Sec. 3.  Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

Sec. 4.  Religious Liberty Guidance.  In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Sec. 5.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.   

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    May 4, 2017.

[OldSchool2]

7 hours ago, wingnut- said:

To me, this is the best thing President Trump has done to date....

But Trump has Democrat Harry Reid to thank for it. For if not for Reid's 2013 triggering of the "nuclear option" -- that changed the Senate rules by lowering the threshold for confirming Cabinet nominees to a simple majority vote -- Trump would have never gotten the traditional 60 votes needed to pass the appointment.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 hours ago, Running Gator said:

According to the courts, the travel ban is unconstitutional, that is the only fact that is relevant at this time.  

 

Their decision wasn't based on the Constitution.  The judges even stated it was based on Trump's statements while a candidate and not on the constitutional merit of the ban.

The courts interpreted it as a Muslim ban, which it is not given that thousands of Muslims around the world are not banned by this EO from entering the country.   It was a limited travel ban from countries known to harbor terrorists and which we cannot adequately vet.  It was a temporary travel ban and travel bans of this nature are not unconstitutional.   It was not unconstitutional when Obama did it and it is not, all of a sudden, unconstitutional now.   The Constitution was the least of their concerns.  It was simply an act of obstructionism, pure and simple.

The lawyers went looking for the most liberal judges they could find to get the results they wanted.  

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Their decision wasn't based on the Constitution.  The judges even stated it was based on Trump's statements while a candidate and not on the constitutional merit of the ban.

The courts interpreted it as a Muslim ban, which it is not given that thousands of Muslims around the world are not banned by this EO from entering the country.   It was a limited travel ban from countries known to harbor terrorists and which we cannot adequately vet.  It was a temporary travel ban and travel bans of this nature are not unconstitutional.   It was not unconstitutional when Obama did it and it is not, all of a sudden, unconstitutional now.   The Constitution was the least of their concerns.  It was simply an act of obstructionism, pure and simple.

The lawyers went looking for the most liberal judges they could find to get the results they wanted.  

None of this matters.  What your opinion is or what my opinion is does not mean a thing. 

In our governmental system, the courts are the arbitrators of what is and what is not within the limits constitution.

At this time, according to the courts, the ban is unconstitutional.  That is the only fact of the situation, the rest is just opinions. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

None of this matters.  What your opinion is or what my opinion is does not mean a thing. 

I am not basing anything on opinion.  The judges in their decisions stated the reasons for their rulings and in every case it was based on what Trump said while a candidate.  

Quote

In our governmental system, the courts are the arbitrators of what is and what is not within the limits constitution.

That''s the ideal, but these judges, by their own admission it was not about the limits of the Constitution.

 

Quote

At this time, according to the courts, the ban is unconstitutional.  That is the only fact of the situation, the rest is just opinions. 

Based on unlawful, liberal decisions that were not really based on the Constitution, at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

15 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

But Trump has Democrat Harry Reid to thank for it. For if not for Reid's 2013 triggering of the "nuclear option" -- that changed the Senate rules by lowering the threshold for confirming Cabinet nominees to a simple majority vote -- Trump would have never gotten the traditional 60 votes needed to pass the appointment.

So even if Trump does something good, something he can take credit for, here you come trying to dream up reasons that he really didn't do it.   That is just ridiculous.

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not basing anything on opinion.  The judges in their decisions stated the reasons for their rulings and in every case it was based on what Trump said while a candidate.  

That''s the ideal, but these judges, by their own admission it was not about the limits of the Constitution.

 

Based on unlawful, liberal decisions that were not really based on the Constitution, at all.

Fact:  The courts ruled the ban unconstitutional.  

After that, nothing else really matters.   The courts said that the right to kill a baby in the womb is a constitutional right.  As much as you and I may disagree with that, the fact is that in this country it is.