It's about the principle of whether or not the President has the authority to do this kind of ban or not.
Last edited:
It's about the principle of whether or not the President has the authority to do this kind of ban or not.Yeah, I'm wondering why the ban is still necessary? Hasn't the Trump admin. done what it needed in the time that's passed? So the ban is needed because.....?
Come on, DSF, Bucky, et al.....why is this ban still needed?
How could Trump ensure the vetting of refugees coming out of Syria? Who would the USA talk to over there confirming things?Yeah, I'm wondering why the ban is still necessary? Hasn't the Trump admin. done what it needed in the time that's passed? So the ban is needed because.....?
Come on, DSF, Bucky, et al.....why is this ban still needed?
This one wasn't even close. Trump's order was perfectly constitutional.
How could Trump ensure the vetting of refugees coming out of Syria? Who would the USA talk to over there confirming things?
Yeah, I'm wondering why the ban is still necessary? Hasn't the Trump admin. done what it needed in the time that's passed? So the ban is needed because.....?
Come on, DSF, Bucky, et al.....why is this ban still needed?
Some guy claims to be Daffy Duck coming out of Syria, how do we verify that he's Daffy Duck? Our internal checks can only be as good as the information that we have.The US conducts it's own comprehensive vet that passes all those people through internal checks against our security apparatus. It takes upwards of two years for everything. There are lots easier ways to get into the US to cause trouble than through the refugee program. Exactly how many Syrian refugees, lawfully admitted, have conducted terrorism in the US anyway?
Well. What you guys do now is take about two years to do everything you can to verify he is Daffy Duck. If at any time in the many steps along the way doubt is raised or it can't be determined, he isn't let in.Some guy claims to be Daffy Duck coming out of Syria, how do we verify that he's Daffy Duck? Our internal checks can only be as good as the information that we have.
So if the government needed 90 and 120 days to examine and update vetting pursuant to an EO that was signed 150 days ago I'm having trouble sussing out why the ban is still required.
Yeah, I'm wondering why the ban is still necessary? Hasn't the Trump admin. done what it needed in the time that's passed? So the ban is needed because.....?
Come on, DSF, Bucky, et al.....why is this ban still needed?
Well. What you guys do now is take about two years to do everything you can to verify he is Daffy Duck. If at any time in the many steps along the way doubt is raised or it can't be determined, he isn't let in.
Seems simple no?
Thus the what you guys do now at the beginningPretty much how it worked already AFAIK.
Sorry to threaten anyone's little bubble here, but the 90/120 day ban is now moot...SCOTUS needs to weigh in and reaffirm the constitutionality of this expressed Presidental power...and will undoubtedly uphold the major provisions of the executive order.Been screaming that for the last 150 days as well, WHY WON'T A REPORTER ASK THAT QUESTION? or have they? Whatever they would of done (nothing) they should be done, but they aren't going to do anything, it's all about trump's ego.
It's about the principle of whether or not the President has the authority to do this kind of ban or not.
“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. 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.”
Sorry to threaten anyone's little bubble here, but the 90/120 day ban is now moot...SCOTUS needs to weigh in and reaffirm the constitutionality of this expressed Presidental power...and will undoubtedly uphold the major provisions of the executive order.
You're coming out of left field here buddy...you forget to take your meds this morning?Yes "undoubtedly" just like Republicans will "undoubtedly" offer a superior single payer alternative to Obamacare...
Coming from a guy who mere weeks ago held out hope Trump would push R's to single payer? Talk about needing a med adjustment.You're coming out of left field here buddy...you forget to take your meds this morning?
It's about the principle of whether or not the President has the authority to do this kind of ban or not.
Huh? The order could very well be constitutional given how much it was watered down (see my OP), but nothing that happened today concluded that was the case. SCOTUS just let part of the order stand until it's final fate is decided next term. Come on OutHouse, even you can read more carefully than this. ;-)and apparently he does. funny how many liberal in here were yelling "unconstitutional" and turns out they didn't know what they were talking about which is par for course on this forum.
here you go liberals, here is a beer to drown your tears in .
Hope and wishful thinking are hope and wishful thinking. You have something relevant to say here...or are you just trying to derail this thread into a personal vendetta?Coming from a guy who mere weeks ago held out hope Trump would push R's to single payer? Talk about needing a med adjustment.
I'm reminding those, who didn't already know, that your subjective adverb "undoubtedly" is another one of your "hopes" akin to previous nutty claims of yours, such as your hope Trump would push R's to single payer (or that R's actually had an alternative at all, frankly). A gentle reminder if I might add, I could be far more expansive.Hope and wishful thinking are hope and wishful thinking. You have something relevant to say here...or are you just trying to derail this thread into a personal vendetta?
They will rationalize the SCOTUS decision and their political loss..as they always do....and then move on to their next outrage or "referendum" vote. I don't think there's enough beer on this planet to drown their tears....or ease their hatred.and apparently he does. funny how many liberal in here were yelling "unconstitutional" and turns out they didn't know what they were talking about which is par for course on this forum.
here you go liberals, here is a beer to drown your tears in .
Dude...you're fucking insane. Where did I expressly say that Trump would "undoubtedly" push R's to single payer. Put up or shut up you demented asshole.I'm reminding those, who didn't already know, that your subjective adverb "undoubtedly" is another one of your "hopes" akin to previous nutty claims of yours, such as your hope Trump would push R's to single payer (or that R's actually had an alternative at all, frankly). A gentle reminder if I might add, I could be far more expansive.
Sorry to threaten anyone's little bubble here, but the 90/120 day ban is now moot...SCOTUS needs to weigh in and reaffirm the constitutionality of this expressed Presidental power...and will undoubtedly uphold the major provisions of the executive order.