Trump wins 2- Travel Ban and abortion clinic ruling

[gamervivek]

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.

The ruling was 5-4 after a year and half of sheer nonsense and the dissenters even brought up the irrelevant japanese internment history. I was hoping that it would be 7-1 with RBG recusing herself and the unwise latina being a lost cause. Far too optimistic of me to believe that 'liberals' can stop being deranged at some level. The only silver lining was Thomas making a note of national injunctions that stopped travel ban from going into effect all across the country and being put out like candy.

 

[fskimospy]

The ruling was 5-4 after a year and half of sheer nonsense and the dissenters even brought up the irrelevant japanese internment history. I was hoping that it would be 7-1 with RBG recusing herself and the unwise latina being a lost cause. Far too optimistic of me to believe that 'liberals' can stop being deranged at some level.

It was pretty simple, the liberal justices said the bill of rights applies to immigration policy and the conservative justices said it didn't. There's no question the purpose of Trump's order was to prevent Muslim immigration to the US as he said so himself repeatedly. The only question was if SCOTUS was going to allow that. We both know perfectly well had Obama attempted to ban Christian immigration in an identical way the conservative justices would have voted differently but that's the world we live in.

The only silver lining was Thomas making a note of national injunctions that stopped travel ban from going into effect all across the country and being put out like candy.

Not really relevant as Thomas' opinion is not binding precedent, it's just him going off on a crazed rant as he does in most of his opinions.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It was pretty simple, the liberal justices said the bill of rights applies to immigration policy and the conservative justices said it didn't. There's no question the purpose of Trump's order was to prevent Muslim immigration to the US as he said so himself repeatedly. The only question was if SCOTUS was going to allow that. We both know perfectly well had Obama attempted to ban Christian immigration in an identical way the conservative justices would have voted differently but that's the world we live in.
Not really relevant as Thomas' opinion is not binding precedent, it's just him going off on a crazed rant as he does in most of his opinions.

No, the conservative judges upheld the law and the Constitution and gave little consideration to what the President said while stumping for office. The liberal judges disregarded the law and the Constitution in order to throw a tiny tantrum of protest.

 

[thraashman]

It was pretty simple, the liberal justices said the bill of rights applies to immigration policy and the conservative justices said it didn't. There's no question the purpose of Trump's order was to prevent Muslim immigration to the US as he said so himself repeatedly. The only question was if SCOTUS was going to allow that. We both know perfectly well had Obama attempted to ban Christian immigration in an identical way the conservative justices would have voted differently but that's the world we live in.

The difference is if Obama had tried to ban Chrisitans, the liberals still very much would have voted how they did here. And the conservatives in AT would have been howling and making veiled threats of violence towards Obama whereas here they cheer the shitting on of the Constitution.

 

[gamervivek]

It was pretty simple,

Yes it was, and yet the partisan hacks couldn't stop being partisan hacks. What a fucking joke the top court in your land is never mind the hactivists in lower courts.

Not really relevant as Thomas' opinion is not binding precedent, it's just him going off on a crazed rant as he does in most of his opinions.

It's relevant in that it might come up in SC one day and some judges might have the good sense to knock it off. Whom am I kidding, the latter is not gonna happen.

And as I told you before, keep your stupid strawman to yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

The difference is if Obama had tried to ban Chrisitans, the liberals still very much would have voted how they did here. And the conservatives in AT would have been howling and making veiled threats of violence towards Obama whereas here they cheer the shitting on of the Constitution.

Exactly, it's because while liberals aren't immune from tribal identity they aren't defined by it in the way that conservatives are. I'm very confident an Obama policy to ban Christians in an identical way would have been struck down 9-0 with a stirring defense of religious liberty by one of the conservative justices, noting how people came to America to flee religious persecution, not to endure it.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it was, and yet the partisan hacks couldn't stop being partisan hacks. What a fucking joke the top court in your land is never mind the hactivists in lower courts.

It's relevant in that it might come up in SC one day and some judges might have the good sense to knock it off. Whom am I kidding, the latter is not gonna happen.

And as I told you before, keep your stupid strawman to yourself.

Haha, it's not surprising to me that 'partisan hack' to you means 'judge who doesn't rule the way I want'.

Similarly, 'straw man' appears to mean 'argument I can't refute but makes me feel uncomfortable'. lol.

 

[gamervivek]

Haha, it's not surprising to me that 'partisan hack' to you means 'judge who doesn't rule the way I want'.

Look another strawman.

Similarly, 'straw man' appears to mean 'argument I can't refute but makes me feel uncomfortable'. lol.

And another one.

RBG should have taken your 'argument' and recused herself from the proceedings but no, she had to join the unwise latina in being on the right side of history.

As I said before, it's far too optimistic of me to believe that Supreme Court justices would be above this nonsense, but no, liberalism's virus is too corrupting for even the supposedly best among us.

 

[fskimospy]

Look another strawman.

And another one.

RBG should have taken your 'argument' and recused herself from the proceedings but no, she had to join the unwise latina in being on the right side of history.

As I said before, it's far too optimistic of me to believe that Supreme Court justices would be above this nonsense, but no, liberalism's virus is too corrupting for even the supposedly best among us.

You should take a step back and look how you talk. You’re an absolutely crazed partisan who clearly is too blinded by emotion to evaluate things rationally.

The reason these SCOTUS justices earn so much of your rage is precisely because they are above the sort of nonsense you want them to engage in.

Allow me to register my amused incredulity that you think SCOTUS allowing the president to exclude people from the country due to their religion will end up on the ‘right side of history’. Lol.

 

[lopri]

Korematsu was invoked by Trump and his minions first as a precedent of his travel ban. Roberts' gratuitous dicta purporting to overrule Korematsu while deploying the exact same underlying reasoning to uphold Trump's executive order will be one for the history book of laughter.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Cutting off Muslims from America is ultimately America's loss. There are many other places where Muslims can go to to contribute. Not least our northern neighbor. But so many other countries as well.

 

[gamervivek]

You should take a step back and look how you talk. You’re an absolutely crazed partisan who clearly is too blinded by emotion to evaluate things rationally.

The reason these SCOTUS justices earn so much of your rage is precisely because they are above the sort of nonsense you want them to engage in.

Again, you're so far off base that it's better that I call it a strawman than you being dense.

Allow me to register my amused incredulity that you think SCOTUS allowing the president to exclude people from the country due to their religion will end up on the ‘right side of history’. Lol.

Keep loling, and stop replying if you can't comprehend what's written.

 

[blackangst1]

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...

Show me where I ever said that. Im just saying stop with the BS its a ban on Muslims since the largest Muslim majority countries were left off the list.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[blackangst1]

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.

I was pointing out the countries are the same. And at least youre being honest and calling it a travel ban, and not the bullshit of a Muslim ban. Thanks for that.

 

[blackangst1]

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?

Youre a smart guy fskimospy I dont understand why you continue to spout this BS.

Serious 2 questions.

Would a Muslim from Indonesia be allowed to enter the US? If the answer is yes, its NOT a Muslim ban.

Would a Christian from one of the banned countries be allowed to enter? If the answer is no then its a ban on the country.

 

[blackangst1]

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?

Picking and choosing what you believe when Trump says something? How noble of you.

 

[ivwshane]

I was pointing out the countries are the same. And at least youre being honest and calling it a travel ban, and not the bullshit of a Muslim ban. Thanks for that.

Keep those blinders on, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to something other than what's in your bubble.

 

[umbrella39]

The list will only become legit if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey are added... Until then it's pillow talk to fire up the base.

Trump would really surprise me and lot of people if he were to ever add countries he does direct business with...

 

[Sunburn74]

Korematsu was invoked by Trump and his minions first as a precedent of his travel ban. Roberts' gratuitous dicta purporting to overrule Korematsu while deploying the exact same underlying reasoning to uphold Trump's executive order will be one for the history book of laughter.

There is a saying in chess "one bad move undoes 40 good ones". Kennedy has had a great career as a justice ; this may be the one that people remember him for

 

[blackangst1]

The list will only become legit if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey are added... Until then it's pillow talk to fire up the base.

Trump would really surprise me and lot of people if he were to ever add countries he does direct business with...

So in other words, you would support a so-called Muslim ban if it included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey?

LOL

 

[umbrella39]

So in other words, you would support a so-called Muslim ban if it included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey?

LOL

When did this become about me caring or not...

LOL?

I live in Dearborn. I don't care. Do you?

 

[blackangst1]

When did this become about me caring or not...

LOL?

I live in Dearborn. I don't care. Do you?

Guess I interpreted "l;egit" as caring. My bad.