Trump wins 2- Travel Ban and abortion clinic ruling

[imported_tajmahal]

Win-Win both for President Trump and his supporters, and for all Americans in general.
https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c98...rump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...avel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

Nothing quite as fun as another USSC overturning of the useless and rabidly partisan 9th Circuit Court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-regulating-anti-abortion-clinics/645842002/

 

[Homerboy]

Bummer. It's sad that this is where we're at in today's world. America goes backward yet again.

 

[fskimospy]

Despite the overall obvious partisan shittiness of the ruling I did appreciate this part:

The decision was aimed at a liberal state government seeking to notify pregnant women of their rights to an abortion. But it could have unintended consequences. Laws in more conservative states requiring women seeking abortions to view ultrasounds or learn about the growth of their fetus now could be at risk.

Say goodbye to a ton of red state requirements for abortion providers.

 

[zinfamous]

Win-Win both for President Trump and his supporters, and for all Americans in general.
https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c98...rump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...avel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

Nothing quite as fun as another USSC overturning of the useless and rabidly partisan 9th Circuit Court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-regulating-anti-abortion-clinics/645842002/

your backwards, inhuman philosophy dies with you and yours.

look at this:

It also requires unlicensed centers to inform clients that they are not medical facilities. Challengers called it a form of compelled speech.

Oh no! Unlicensed, fake medical centers would have been required to inform clients that they are charlatans and their lives are at risk for using their services! The HORROR!

 

[OrByte]

I was never a fan of the travel ban. Especially the earlier versions of it that restricted flight to Muslims...religious ban.

The latest version of the ban made major changes, and with todays version of the travel ban it no longer reflects a ban on religion outright.

Even though we know the intent of the ban from the beginning. Coming from Trumps own words.

I hope Mueller is paying attention.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bummer. It's sad that this is where we're at in today's world. America goes backward yet again.

Why bummer.

The immigration ruling asserts the President’s constitutional executive discretion in setting immigration policy, and could have a net positive benefit once Trump is out office. It makes no moral assessment as to how the President asserts that power.

As for the abortion ruling, the state of California overstepped its constitutional authority and got smacked for it, but this door swings both ways to hit any state that plays partisan games around abortion providers.

 

[fskimospy]

Why bummer.

The immigration ruling asserts the President’s constitutional executive discretion in setting immigration policy, and could have a net positive benefit once Trump is out office. It makes no moral assessment as to how the President asserts that power.

The president has to wield that power within the scope of the Constitution. The majority decided his previous statements had no bearing on his intent which I find preposterous.

Do you really think for one second if Barack Obama had said it was his intention to exclude Christians from immigrating and then banned travel from a bunch of overwhelmingly Christian nations that SCOTUS would have upheld it? I mean... really?

 

[dainthomas]

Despite the overall obvious partisan shittiness of the ruling I did appreciate this part:



Say goodbye to a ton of red state requirements for abortion providers.

Self-ownage is the best ownage.

 

[dphantom]

Great to see our Constitution upheld once again.

 

[interchange]

So...Two horrible things are (barely) deemed legal.

 

[K1052]

This one prolly going to be up there historically with the decision where they said the internment of Japanese citizens was legal.

 

[glenn1]

Say goodbye to a ton of red state requirements for abortion providers.

As they should be. I disagree with the decision framework of Roe although I wouldn’t restrict abortion but laws merely to harass those exercising a right (abortion, gun ownership, etc etc etc) are pointless.

 

[UNCjigga]

Mitch McConnell is beaming and sniggering like a schoolboy crouching over a Playboy mag.

I bet Trump can't stand it that Mitch gets the real credit for all of "his successes". Blocking Garland and changing Senate rules to ensure Gorsuch's confirmation is the gambit that will keep conservatism clinging to life for the next 20-30 years after all the Baby Boomers are dead.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you really think for one second if Barack Obama had said it was his intention to exclude Christians from immigrating and then banned travel from a bunch of overwhelmingly Christian nations that SCOTUS would have upheld it? I mean... really?

We’ve gone to war with majority Christian nations in the past. If a majority Christian nation started to destabilize the world through cells of fanatics, acts of terrorism and the proxy support of a terrorist state, I would expect SCOTUS to uphold it.

 

[Sunburn74]

Why bummer.

The immigration ruling asserts the President’s constitutional executive discretion in setting immigration policy, and could have a net positive benefit once Trump is out office. It makes no moral assessment as to how the President asserts that power.

As for the abortion ruling, the state of California overstepped its constitutional authority and got smacked for it, but this door swings both ways to hit any state that plays partisan games around abortion providers.

You realize that this exact thing happened in world war 2 and is seen today as one of the greatest mistakes the US has ever made? So great a mistake that court today did something never before done: openly denounce a former SCOTUS ruling as means to distance today's ruling from it as the parallels were too obvious.

Sounds good.

 

[Paratus]

Despite the overall obvious partisan shittiness of the ruling I did appreciate this part:



Say goodbye to a ton of red state requirements for abortion providers.

Yup. This one was a trap for the punish women contingent. If the government can’t force scam anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to tell the truth they can’t force women’s clinics to lie.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You realize that this exact thing happened in world war 2 and is seen today as one of the greatest mistakes the US has ever made? So great a mistake that court today did something never before done: openly denounce a former SCOTUS ruling as means to distance today's ruling from it as the parallels were too obvious.

Sounds good.

I assume you are referring to Japanese internment camps? I fail to see the equivalence between imprisoning American citizens versus denying entry to people from certain countries who are not American citizens.

 

[fskimospy]

I assume you are referring to Japanese internment camps? I fail to see the equivalence between imprisoning American citizens versus denying entry to people from certain countries who are not American citizens.

Well we do have that whole 'Congress shall make no law inhibiting the free exercise of religion' thing. Since the president's immigration powers are delegated from Congress that's basically what's happening here. The difference is that SCOTUS decided that the first amendment doesn't apply because immigration law apparently doesn't have to follow the Constitution. (really) This means future presidents can exclude gay people from entering, those with opinions the president doesn't like, black people, etc, etc. All he needs to do is come up with a cursory explanation as to why it's about something else. How cursory? Well, in this case despite the president coming straight out and saying he wanted to ban Muslims that wasn't enough.

Much like with the Hobby Lobby decision it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how extraordinarily prone to abuse this is.

 

[Jhhnn]

As for the abortion ruling, the state of California overstepped its constitutional authority and got smacked for it, but this door swings both ways to hit any state that plays partisan games around abortion providers

Swinging the other way may never happen.

 

[Homerboy]

Wait, I thought it WASN'T a travel ban:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317144-spicer-trump-executive-order-not-a-travel-ban

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why bummer.

The immigration ruling asserts the President’s constitutional executive discretion in setting immigration policy, and could have a net positive benefit once Trump is out office. It makes no moral assessment as to how the President asserts that power.

As for the abortion ruling, the state of California overstepped its constitutional authority and got smacked for it, but this door swings both ways to hit any state that plays partisan games around abortion providers.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[HomerJS]

Ironically, I'd bet one of Trump's women in the past has made use of abortion clinics.

 

[ivwshane]

Yup. This one was a trap for the punish women contingent. If the government can’t force scam anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to tell the truth they can’t force women’s clinics to lie.

Yeah, I thought this case was specially set up to be a trap and to inadvertently strike down all the red state anti abortion laws.

Sounds like a win to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

The president has to wield that power within the scope of the Constitution. The majority decided his previous statements had no bearing on his intent which I find preposterous.

Bent over backwards to do it.

 

[Sunburn74]

I assume you are referring to Japanese internment camps? I fail to see the equivalence between imprisoning American citizens versus denying entry to people from certain countries who are not American citizens.

I don't know. At least 5 members of the supreme Court see the parallels very clearly, including chief justice Kennedy. Both cases test the balance between violations in constitutional protections in terms of racism and freedom vs presidential powers in terms of national security and immigration. In essence in the time of war, racist sentiments were hidden in plain sight within neutrally written executive actions aimed at national security during wartime and were upheld by the SCOTUS. If you don't see the parallels, I don't know what to say other than at least 5 justices see the parallels so much so that decades of SCOTUS precedent were broken today with the chief justice publicly denouncing a former ruling as means to distance the current ruling from it.