Trump wins 2- Travel Ban and abortion clinic ruling

[sportage]

What we now have is....
Donald Trump brain-farts, and an US Supreme Court that approves the smell.
Brain-fart into US law.
Brain-fart, then... law.
Brain-fart, then law.

So, today we witnessed a ruling that many liberals might even support.
Considerably, a minor ruling that will not concern most Americans.
Not really of concern for most.

However, there is much more happening within this court than it appears on the surface.
Today, a simple ban. Tomorrow, overturning Row vs Wade. And the day after that, marriage equality overturned.
Just scratching the surface.

At some point, this court will effect your personal safe space.
Your little niche in the world.
Then.... LOOK OUT !!!!!!!

Trump has an agenda.
His base has an agenda.
Trump has more brain-farts in the making than Campbell's baked beans could ever produce.
Soon, Donald Trump will get still another brain-fart "enabler" on the US Supreme Court.
A Trump appointed justice.
His stacked court.
And let the brain-farts fly.....

No one is safe from Donald's brain-farts. No one!
Not you, not me, not his party, not even his loving base.
At some point that stench from one of Donald's brain-farts will head your way.
Target some issue that you hold sacred and dear.
THEN..... what will you do?
What will you do?
Be assured, a Trump brain-fart is a heading your way.

 

[umbrella39]

Its fun to watch the minority think they are going to be allowed to kill our democracy without a huge push back!

 

[Indus]

Its fun to watch the minority think they are going to be allowed to kill our democracy without a huge push back!

It's already dead.

He'll claim illegals stole the election if he doesn't win and then as a compromise we'll submit to him.

 

[Phenzyn]

#winning!

Too old a meme? Tiger blood?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Whoa, grand mal TDS seizure in action.

What we now have is....
Donald Trump brain-farts, and an US Supreme Court that approves the smell.
Brain-fart into US law.
Brain-fart, then... law.
Brain-fart, then law.

So, today we witnessed a ruling that many liberals might even support.
Considerably, a minor ruling that will not concern most Americans.
Not really of concern for most.

However, there is much more happening within this court than it appears on the surface.
Today, a simple ban. Tomorrow, overturning Row vs Wade. And the day after that, marriage equality overturned.
Just scratching the surface.

At some point, this court will effect your personal safe space.
Your little niche in the world.
Then.... LOOK OUT !!!!!!!

Trump has an agenda.
His base has an agenda.
Trump has more brain-farts in the making than Campbell's baked beans could ever produce.
Soon, Donald Trump will get still another brain-fart "enabler" on the US Supreme Court.
A Trump appointed justice.
His stacked court.
And let the brain-farts fly.....

No one is safe from Donald's brain-farts. No one!
Not you, not me, not his party, not even his loving base.
At some point that stench from one of Donald's brain-farts will head your way.
Target some issue that you hold sacred and dear.
THEN..... what will you do?
What will you do?
Be assured, a Trump brain-fart is a heading your way.

 

[lopri]

These two rulings highlight just how political the court is, under the pretense of being a neutral arbiter. It also exposes the ideological nature of the so-called "Originalism." Justice Thomas' opinion striking down California law's disclosure requirement against the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" does not even bother to mention the original meaning or intent of the 1st Amendment (or 14th for that matter). That requiring a disclosure of factual information is somehow "content-based" speech discrimination is a novel concept that should roll the eyes of the framers. And that novel idea, if pushed to its logical extreme, will have untold consequences on so many regulations on professional conducts. Say, could the state require a bank to disclose whether it is insured by FDIC? According to the majority's view, such law should amount to some totalitarian scheme where the powerless bankers are "forced" to speak against their "interests" and "goals," and would be violative of the 1st Amendment. But conservatives need not worry about such extremes, because Justice Thomas invokes "Originalism" only when it suits his ideological druthers. You can rest assured that he will find ways to decide cases to your likings, dressing them up with the cloak of "Originalism" when necessary.

For the liberals: You should take the judiciary seriously and put more effort to get out the vote on that basis.

 

[lopri]

Oh, and tommorow will be the end of public-sector unions. Also on the basis of the 1st Amendment. Anything that conservatives do not like nowadays - such as having to pay union dues - is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Money is speech, didn't you know?

P.S. Naturally, "Originalism" will be conspicuously absent from tomorrow's decision destroying unions.

 

[ivwshane]

These two rulings highlight just how political the court is, under the pretense of being a neutral arbiter. It also exposes the ideological nature of the so-called "Originalism." Justice Thomas' opinion striking down California law's disclosure requirement against the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" does not even bother to mention the original meaning or intent of the 1st Amendment (or 14th for that matter). That requiring a disclosure of factual information is somehow "content-based" speech discrimination is a novel concept that should roll the eyes of the framers. And that novel idea, if pushed to its logical extreme, will have untold consequences on so many regulations on professional conducts. Say, could the state require a bank to disclose whether it is insured by FDIC? According to the majority's view, such law should amount to some totalitarian scheme where the powerless bankers are "forced" to speak against their "interests" and "goals," and would be violative of the 1st Amendment. But conservatives need not worry about such extremes, because Justice Thomas invokes "Originalism" only when it suits his ideological druthers. You can rest assured that he will find ways to decide cases to your likings, dressing them up with the cloak of "Originalism" when necessary.

For the liberals: You should take the judiciary seriously and put more effort to get out the vote on that basis.

Wouldn't the bolded indicate that anti abortion laws that require doctors to perform scans and tell patients lies and not allow doctors to talk about the option of abortion, now be unconstitutional?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I think both are the right call by the SC. The travel ban is a nonsense political ploy to his base but it falls within his realm as the president and chief executive though. The abortion one is more interesting and I think it’s fantastic news if it helps put a stop to the bs about having to see an ultrasound or hear the heartbeat prior.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Oh, and tommorow will be the end of public-sector unions. Also on the basis of the 1st Amendment. Anything that conservatives do not like nowadays - such as having to pay union dues - is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Money is speech, didn't you know?

P.S. Naturally, "Originalism" will be conspicuously absent from tomorrow's decision destroying unions.

Dang, you're ruining my thread for tomorrow about another win.

 

[Thebobo]

Dang, you're ruining my thread for tomorrow about another win.

I just made one

 

[Jhhnn]

These two rulings highlight just how political the court is, under the pretense of being a neutral arbiter. It also exposes the ideological nature of the so-called "Originalism." Justice Thomas' opinion striking down California law's disclosure requirement against the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" does not even bother to mention the original meaning or intent of the 1st Amendment (or 14th for that matter). That requiring a disclosure of factual information is somehow "content-based" speech discrimination is a novel concept that should roll the eyes of the framers. And that novel idea, if pushed to its logical extreme, will have untold consequences on so many regulations on professional conducts. Say, could the state require a bank to disclose whether it is insured by FDIC? According to the majority's view, such law should amount to some totalitarian scheme where the powerless bankers are "forced" to speak against their "interests" and "goals," and would be violative of the 1st Amendment. But conservatives need not worry about such extremes, because Justice Thomas invokes "Originalism" only when it suits his ideological druthers. You can rest assured that he will find ways to decide cases to your likings, dressing them up with the cloak of "Originalism" when necessary.

For the liberals: You should take the judiciary seriously and put more effort to get out the vote on that basis.

Well said. It's remarkable how the court majority hides an agenda of control under the banner of freedom.

 

[lopri]

Wouldn't the bolded indicate that anti abortion laws that require doctors to perform scans and tell patients lies and not allow doctors to talk about the option of abortion, now be unconstitutional?

They should be, but won't. Just like how the court manufactured an impermissible anti-religious taint from a single memeber's utterance (in a 7-member council) in Masterpiece Cakeshop case, yet somehow fail to see the virulent anti-Muslim hatred from the documented history of Trump's verbal diarrhea in the travel ban case.

Some of those anti-choice laws are not mearly content-based, but flagrant violations of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint-based discrimination. e.g. requiring doctors/counselors to tell patients that abortion might cause a long-term depression and suicide, or to tell them there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, etc. Without a proven medical consensus, those are simply the state government's "opinions" designed to scare women off from choosing abortion. But as I said, this court is fundamentally a political one, and will find a way to distinguish and slash away cases by manipulating doctrines to suit its ideological ends. It did just that in this very case where Justice Thomas distinguished those existing regulations governing physicians from the California laws which attempted to provide women with more choices.

 

[Noah Abrams]

The Muslim ban, because that is what it is, should have been struck down. You would think the more conservative minded judges would be more sensitive to religious discrimination. They also ruled in favor of the baker recently too. Not good

This will no doubt embolden the xenophobes in power. Wonder what next scheme they will cook up. They surely will. Not good

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

tajjy is such a good little boot licker.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Weird because the countries listed arent near majority of Muslims worldwide. The largest is Indonesia. Weird isnt it? Almost like...its not a Muslim ban...

 

[blackangst1]

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 hope you arent referring to the Korematsu case...

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

That’s not entirely true. Sotomayor evoked Korematsu, and Roberts shut it down by differentiating this case from that one, and also used the opportunity to address the wrong of Korematsu.

The Trump travel ban already received refinement due to judicial review, and today’s ruling clearly differentiates how you may feel about the travel ban relative to the President’s constitutional powers to implement one.

There isn’t a parallel just because Sotomayor evoked one

 

[ivwshane]

That’s not entirely true. Sotomayor evoked Korematsu, and Roberts shut it down by differentiating this case from that one, and also used the opportunity to address the wrong of Korematsu.

The Trump travel ban already received refinement due to judicial review, and today’s ruling clearly differentiates how you may feel about the travel ban relative to the President’s constitutional powers to implement one.

There isn’t a parallel just because Sotomayor evoked one

And the parallel isn't dismissed just because Roberts said there isn't. /facepalm

 

[blackangst1]

What we now have is....
Donald Trump brain-farts, and an US Supreme Court that approves the smell.
Brain-fart into US law.
Brain-fart, then... law.
Brain-fart, then law.

So, today we witnessed a ruling that many liberals might even support.
Considerably, a minor ruling that will not concern most Americans.
Not really of concern for most.

However, there is much more happening within this court than it appears on the surface.
Today, a simple ban. Tomorrow, overturning Row vs Wade. And the day after that, marriage equality overturned.
Just scratching the surface.

At some point, this court will effect your personal safe space.
Your little niche in the world.
Then.... LOOK OUT !!!!!!!

Trump has an agenda.
His base has an agenda.
Trump has more brain-farts in the making than Campbell's baked beans could ever produce.
Soon, Donald Trump will get still another brain-fart "enabler" on the US Supreme Court.
A Trump appointed justice.
His stacked court.
And let the brain-farts fly.....

No one is safe from Donald's brain-farts. No one!
Not you, not me, not his party, not even his loving base.
At some point that stench from one of Donald's brain-farts will head your way.
Target some issue that you hold sacred and dear.
THEN..... what will you do?
What will you do?
Be assured, a Trump brain-fart is a heading your way.

Jesus Christ you sound as looney as the right freaking out about "the deep state" LOL

 

[fskimospy]

Weird because the countries listed arent near majority of Muslims worldwide. The largest is Indonesia. Weird isnt it? Almost like...its not a Muslim ban...

It’s a Muslim ban and we all know this. The reason we know this is because the person who signed the order told us as much.

 

[Jhhnn]

That’s not entirely true. Sotomayor evoked Korematsu, and Roberts shut it down by differentiating this case from that one, and also used the opportunity to address the wrong of Korematsu.

The Trump travel ban already received refinement due to judicial review, and today’s ruling clearly differentiates how you may feel about the travel ban relative to the President’s constitutional powers to implement one.

There isn’t a parallel just because Sotomayor evoked one

Trump's base cheered when he called for a muslim ban. And now they're cheering this not-a-muslim-ban.

Must mean something, huh?

 

[blackangst1]

It’s a Muslim ban and we all know this. The reason we know this is because the person who signed the order told us as much.

SCOTUS disagrees with you. And its not as 80% of Muslims in the world can still travel here.

 

[fskimospy]

SCOTUS disagrees with you. And its not as 80% of Muslims in the world can still travel here.

I know they disagree with me but their opinion was laughable nonsense.

By all means though tell me with a straight face that after the president:

1) calls for a ban on all Muslims then

2) issues a similar ban on his first day in office, then

3) after it’s struck down issues a new ban whose architect comes right out and says Trump asked him how to ban Muslims legally.

4) states that his new ban is doubling down on the original.

Isn’t aiming to ban Muslims. There’s no way you actually believe this and we both know there’s no way SCOTUS believes this. Their opinion was that he could ban Muslims anyway.

 

[blackangst1]

I know they disagree with me but their opinion was laughable nonsense.

By all means though tell me with a straight face that after the president:

1) calls for a ban on all Muslims then

2) issues a similar ban on his first day in office, then

3) after it’s struck down issues a new ban whose architect comes right out and says Trump asked him how to ban Muslims legally.

4) states that his new ban is doubling down on the original.

Isn’t aiming to ban Muslims. There’s no way you actually believe this and we both know there’s no way SCOTUS believes this. Their opinion was that he could ban Muslims anyway.

After you tell me with a straight face its a Muslim ban when 80-95% of Muslims can still travel to the US... go ahead....