Trump wins 2- Travel Ban and abortion clinic ruling

[umbrella39]

Again. If it was Trump's intention to ban Muslims...<snipped for derp>

Can we bury this dead horse. I've accepted it you probably have too if you are being honest. Let's move forward...

It's as silly as trying to argue that this travel ban is to keep us safe from terrorists but then leave Saudi Arabia off the list...

... and Egypt ... and Turkey ... and United Arab Emirates (Hint: Common theme for those 4 countries that I will leave up to you to dot connect)

Let's just all stop pretending as it doesn't matter at this point. Base appeased. Country as safe as it was yesterday...

Next...

 

[blackangst1]

Could those nations be argued, no matter how thinly, to be a national security threat?

The very reason whatever country you are talking about wasn't on the list was most likely to have gullible idiots like yourself say, "see its not a Muslim ban".

How silly you must feel.

Obama thought so. So did Trump. Are you part of POTUS security briefings? No? How the fuck would you know?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What's to be taken from this ruling is that the USSC overturned activist leftist judges in the 9th Circuit, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington etc. and returned us to the rule of law.

 

[blackangst1]

Can we bury this dead horse. I've accepted it you probably have too if you are being honest. Let's move forward...

It's as silly as trying to argue that this travel ban is to keep us safe from terrorists but then leave Saudi Arabia off the list...

... and Egypt ... and Turkey ... and United Arab Emirates (Hint: Common theme for those 4 countries that I will leave up to you to dot connect)

Let's just all stop pretending as it doesn't matter at this point. Base appeased. Country as safe as it was yesterday...

Next...

How about stopping with the BS of this is a Muslim ban since the largest Muslim counties were left off the list?

 

[compuwiz1]

Why do some of you guys care if the President is blocking anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-gay, anti-women, Islamists from entering our country?

The law says he can. It's right there in the constitution.
Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Seems to me the only ones who have tried to usurp the constitution were the liberal judges who blocked his orders. Good to see the SCOTUS rule by the law and not emotions.

 

[umbrella39]

How about stopping with the BS of this is a Muslim ban since the largest Muslim counties were left off the list?

If you stop with the BS about this being a ban intended to thwart terrorists since the countries that support the largest number of terrorists were left off the list...

 

[compuwiz1]

If you stop with the BS about this being a ban intended to thwart terrorists since the countries that support the largest number of terrorists were left off the list...

The POTUS needs to get his shit together and include the other ones too.

 

[umbrella39]

The POTUS needs to get his shit together and include the other ones too.

Thank you. This would actually makes sense then... No more playing favs...

 

[ivwshane]

Obama thought so. So did Trump. Are you part of POTUS security briefings? No? How the fuck would you know?

Lol! Thanks for showing everyone just how utterly fucking stupid you are.

As has pointed out already, many times, Obama's list wasn't a travel ban. It was a ban on visa waivers and required people to obtain a regular visa to travel to the US from those countries. People from those countries were still allowed to travel to the US.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

Again, how silly you must feel to be duped and used by trump and his support staff, aka the right wing media.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well we do have that whole 'Congress shall make no law inhibiting the free exercise of religion' thing.

Immigration of non citizens is not an exercise of religion

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.

No it does not. Trump made this about national security. Last I checked, there are no majority gay nations, and excluding immigration from say Somalia wouldn’t necessarily be discriminatory.

There is an inherent conflict between the Christian world and Muslim world that predates America. A better argument would be that Trump targeted the wrong nations in his ban relative to the threat they represent.

 

[fskimospy]

Immigration of non citizens is not an exercise of religion

Banning people of a specific religion from entering the country is, however. Are you genuinely claiming that it would not violate the first amendment if we set up a national policy where no Jews were allowed in?

No it does not. Trump made this about national security. Last I checked, there are no majority gay nations, and excluding immigration from say Somalia wouldn’t necessarily be discriminatory.

It would not ‘necessarily’ be discriminatory but if I came out and said ‘my goal is to prevent black people from entering the country’ and then selected a number of overwhelmingly black nations to ban immigration on for at best inconsistent reasons it would make sense to infer that my goal was in fact to prevent black people from entering the country.

If justifications as flimsy as Trump’s are all you need then the president can functionally exclude anyone he wants for any reason. As a conservative I’m surprised you want to give the government that much power.

There is an inherent conflict between the Christian world and Muslim world that predates America. A better argument would be that Trump targeted the wrong nations in his ban relative to the threat they represent.

No, the best argument rests in the explicit statements of the person crafting the policy as to its discriminatory motivation and purpose. He said over and over again his goal was to prevent Muslims from entering the US. Let’s take him at his word this one time.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

and Sheiky is such a great little butt licker.

clever comeback. did huckabee write that for you?

 

[ivwshane]

I just thought it was amazing that they dismissed the korematsu ruling because the government lied about having data to validate the need to round up Japanese Americans and put them in camps, but gave trump a pass in the name of national security while this administration hasn't been able to provide any detail about any threats from the named countries.

The supreme court pretty much did a, "hold my beer".

 

[ivwshane]

clever comeback. did huckabee write that for you?

I'm pretty sure he just fantasizes about internet forum users licking his butt.

 

[SNC]

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.

Hmm there's a Right to abortion as there is for gun ownership?

 

[thraashman]

Sorry if your little faux wet dream that the President doesn't have authority to control our border security failed big time.

Trump explicitly said multiple times this was about banning Muslims. I know it. You know it. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment's ban on religious favoritism. If you agree with this ruling, it's because you hate the Constitution. Period.

 

[brandonbull]

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

Liberals still try.

 

[brandonbull]

Trump explicitly said multiple times this was about banning Muslims. I know it. You know it. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment's ban on religious favoritism. If you agree with this ruling, it's because you hate the Constitution. Period.

Did the EO specifically mention religion?

 

[fskimospy]

Did the EO specifically mention religion?

Imagine mods say 'I want to ban brandonbull from AT' and then the next day instead come out with a policy that says 'anyone with a University of South Florida logo is banned.'

They didn't specifically mention your name but what would you think about their intent?

 

[brandonbull]

I just thought it was amazing that they dismissed the korematsu ruling because the government lied about having data to validate the need to round up Japanese Americans and put them in camps, but gave trump a pass in the name of national security while this administration hasn't been able to provide any detail about any threats from the named countries.

The supreme court pretty much did a, "hold my beer".

So Americans citizens living in the US are the same as non-American citizens living in other countries?

 

[brandonbull]

Imagine mods say 'I want to ban brandonbull from AT' and then the next day instead come out with a policy that says 'anyone with a University of South Florida logo is banned.'

They didn't specifically mention your name but what would you think about their intent?

Intent was dumb and the implementation was dumber. I'll just change my logo. Since I'm not the site owner or guaranteed specific rights, I guess all USF logo people are banned. Non-citizens living in other countries are not guaranteed jack from the US. US citizens aren't guaranteed jack from other countries as well.

You are stating that a ban on travel from countries that represent 10% of Muslims equals a ban on Muslims? Regardless of what was said, the EO had no language banning a religion or affected the majority of a religious group. If Trump's EO was a Muslim ban, it was a poor effort then.

 

[K1052]

I just thought it was amazing that they dismissed the korematsu ruling because the government lied about having data to validate the need to round up Japanese Americans and put them in camps, but gave trump a pass in the name of national security while this administration hasn't been able to provide any detail about any threats from the named countries.

The supreme court pretty much did a, "hold my beer".

The reaction I've seen from Japanese-Americans who know anything about this issue has been....furious incredulity. It is a pretty fucked up thing to do when ruling this way.

 

[fskimospy]

Intent was dumb and the implementation was dumber. I'll just change my logo. Since I'm not the site owner or guaranteed specific rights, I guess all USF logo people are banned. Non-citizens living in other countries are not guaranteed jack from the US. US citizens aren't guaranteed jack from other countries as well.

You are stating that a ban on travel from countries that represent 10% of Muslims equals a ban on Muslims? Regardless of what was said, the EO had no language banning a religion or affected the majority of a religious group. If Trump's EO was a Muslim ban, it was a poor effort then.

I think you may have taken my example too literally. Clearly a reasonable person would infer if someone stated their intent to ban you and then issued a policy banning USF logoed people that the policy was targeted at you even if it didn't mention you by name, right?

In order to be a ban related to their religion it does not need to target all or even most people of that religion. The point is that Trump said he was going to ban Muslims from entering, said that focusing on specific geographic countries was an outgrowth of that desire to ban Muslims, and had the person who crafted this policy say 'it was intended to ban Muslims'. Why won't you take them at their word?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why do some of you guys care if the President is blocking anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-gay, anti-women, Islamists from entering our country?

The law says he can. It's right there in the constitution.
Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Seems to me the only ones who have tried to usurp the constitution were the liberal judges who blocked his orders. Good to see the SCOTUS rule by the law and not emotions.

Yes, and the USSC bitchslapped the lower partisan activist courts in this ruling.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/supreme-courts-travel-ban-ruling-is-a-smackdown-to-activist-judges/

"Not only that, but the decision was a major blow to the “judicial resistance” — the attempts by judges to constrain Trump’s clearly vested powers because they don’t like the president who’s wielding them."

"There’s also the question of federal district judges handing out “universal” injunctions that reach way beyond the parties involved — affecting the whole country or even the world.

The district judge in Hawaii — Derrick Watson — had enjoined Trump from implementing the travel restrictions anywhere. Chief Justice Roberts felt no need, in this case, to sort out the issue.

Clarence Thomas went further. He called such orders “legally and historically dubious,” warning that if the lower courts continue using them, the Supremes would be “duty-bound” to adjudicate.

So the judicial resistance is on notice."

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I just thought it was amazing that they dismissed the korematsu ruling because the government lied about having data to validate the need to round up Japanese Americans and put them in camps, but gave trump a pass in the name of national security while this administration hasn't been able to provide any detail about any threats from the named countries.

The supreme court pretty much did a, "hold my beer".

"
The majority, however, swept Korematsu aside. “Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so,” the majority wrote, “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case.”

It called the internment of American citizens “solely and explicitly on the basis of race,” as happened in Korematsu, “objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority.”

In an extraordinary aside, the majority went so far as to label Korematsu “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” It said it “has been overruled in the court of history.”

The majority insisted, though, that it’s “wholly inapt” to liken the “morally repugnant” policy in Korematsu to “a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.”

What Trump had done, it ruled, is “well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other president.” It was done under a law Congress passed and could adjust at any time."



The USSC also bitchslapped the red herring Korematsu case in this ruling.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/supreme-courts-travel-ban-ruling-is-a-smackdown-to-activist-judges/