Donald Trump is going to court. Is anyone surprised?

Whoa there. You went past the predetermined headline. That might be a bit much for the typical leftist to follow.

Yes, that must've been it. Not that the eminently qualified and appointed judges upheld law and the US Constitution.

Talk about a nation of whiners.

@Oconnor: you mean the activist judges who ignored federal law , and the fact that the last 5 presidents have done it? It's lib obstructionism ... nothing more

@TexChik: Clearly, your facts are wrong. Not only do these judges act in the interest of the law - they are not political animals -- it was just upheld so it's obviously not acting in disregard of federal law. And no, no one has ever instituted a ban quite like this.

@Oconnor: clearly you are a lib and full of sh*t. Congress created the law ... not activist lib judges

@TexChik: Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You know, as evidenced by your own words.

@Oconnor: clearly you are still politicizing the liberal agenda of obstructionism . Now the republicans have no choice but to put the SCOTUS Justice confirmation on a majority vote who will overturn the political activist ruling ofbtge appellate court. an activist district court judge who advises illegals on the side stayed the ban, and the most confrontational activist court in the land .., packed with fresh obama picks .. upheld the stay in spite of a long established precedent federal law giving the president the power to do what he did . The law is concrete , the activist judges are the problem ... as usual

@TexChik: Um, okay. Where are you getting all this "activist" stuff?

@Oconnor: the record of that court is widely known

Yeah, hi, mind if I weigh in? Great, thanks.
1) Judicial Activist makes decisions based on the constitution based on what's there. Judicial originalist makes decisions based on constitutions literal meaning. That being said, it's safe to assume that this judge was an originalist since there is literally nothing in the constitution that justifies his ban.
2) An originalist doesn't guarantee anything. Nixon tried it and lost. Just how it goes.
3) Trump does have the authority to grant this ban, however he is not granted immunity from the law. All caught up now.

@XamadtheFirst: no president ( except obama ) ever assumed they were above the law

@TexChik: Trump isn't smart enough to know he isn't, but he is within his authority. However, the constitutionality is in question.

@XamadtheFirst: So a billionaire real estate and business mogul , reality TV star , and President of the United States isn't smart enough ? But some lame libtard is? You give yourself way too much credit

@TexChik: Yeah, calling me libtard isn't helping your case for the man who's never even looked at the constitution. Still, you're entitled to your opinion sweetheart.

@XamadtheFirst: talking out of your south end spewing nothing but libtard fantasy just proves my point

@TexChik: Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion sweetheart.

@XamadtheFirst: libtard I don't need your permission

@TexChik: Does entitled mean something else on the asembly line, sweetheart?

@XamadtheFirst: coming from a condescending prick it makes me want to take a shower ...

@TexChik: Takes one to know one, sweetheart.

@XamadtheFirst: I'm sure what you think you might know could fill a thimble libtard . Presumptuous libtard in fact

@TexChik: Okay sweetheart, you enjoy your shower. Lord knows you'll need it after that oil intake.

@XamadtheFirst: whatever prick

@TexChik: bye bye, sweetheart.

@XamadtheFirst: c ya prick.... that's pretentious prick isn't it? Sorry