Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
aztek

Court upholds Trump travel ban,

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aztek

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-142008850--politics.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Could his authority extend to the southern border as well?

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump, what is stopping him adding Mexico, Central America, and South America to the list?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

 

The Version 3 travel ban wasn't so bad. 

 

16 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Could his authority extend to the southern border as well?

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump, what is stopping him adding Mexico, Central America, and South America to the list?

Trade mostly.  Stopping legal immigration, business, and travel from our third largest trading partner would be bad for the economy.

It'd also be harder to do.  Trump got the Supreme Court win because they took it on face value instead holding to his promises of a "Muslim" ban.  If he just arbitrarily added more brown people to the list, it would just go back to the court with more evidence that it was based on a bias than any true security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
1 hour ago, .ZZ. said:

Could his authority extend to the southern border as well?

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump, what is stopping him adding Mexico, Central America, and South America to the list?

Kinda lost me there. Also on a smaller note this would be terrible for UFC/MMA fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

 

The Version 3 travel ban wasn't so bad. 

 

Trade mostly.  Stopping legal immigration, business, and travel from our third largest trading partner would be bad for the economy.

It'd also be harder to do.  Trump got the Supreme Court win because they took it on face value instead holding to his promises of a "Muslim" ban.  If he just arbitrarily added more brown people to the list, it would just go back to the court with more evidence that it was based on a bias than any true security.

Actually, they simply recognized the well-established legal power of the office of the president to do exactly what he did.  And they damned took all too long to get to it.  Once again, the Ninth "CIRCUS" bites a biscuit...

Edited by and then
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, .ZZ. said:

Could his authority extend to the southern border as well?

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump, what is stopping him adding Mexico, Central America, and South America to the list?

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the constitution, not Trump.   A federal judge should not have teh ability to dictate to the 50 states based on his personal feelings and that judge should've ruled on what was in the EO, not what was said by Trump on the campaign trail.  Imagine a coiuntry where you could go backland select something said ny a president a decade ago and overrule his constitutional powers based on said statement.  It is absurd but ten again, so is liberalism.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread cleaned

Enough with the race baiting please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 minutes ago, Saru said:

Thread cleaned

Enough with the race baiting please.

Saru, I understand that some of these posts were offensive but a primary complaint about this EO is that it is targeting a specific religion (not sure how race ever got into this but is a standard accusation) and shouldn't that be addressed?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Saru, I understand that some of these posts were offensive but a primary complaint about this EO is that it is targeting a specific religion (not sure how race ever got into this but is a standard accusation) and shouldn't that be addressed?

All I said was no race baiting (the offending post(s) have been removed), I didn't say that the topic itself was out of bounds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, and then said:

Actually, they simply recognized the well-established legal power of the office of the president to do exactly what he did.  And they damned took all too long to get to it.  Once again, the Ninth "CIRCUS" bites a biscuit...

That was your interpretation after reading the decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
3 hours ago, .ZZ. said:

Could his authority extend to the southern border as well?

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump, what is stopping him adding Mexico, Central America, and South America to the list?

What's stopping him? Nothing,

Next it will be us marijuana smoking socialists north of the 49th because, well you know, we're a threat to Wisconsin.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That was your interpretation after reading the decision?

That is pretty much what it says so what is your interpretation?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton

Congratulations!!! 

You are now up to 6.3 billion per year worse off. According to Trump's own report. That he his because he didn't like what it said. 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/mqds6y/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-becca-heller---dispelling-the-myths-about-refugees-in-the-trump-era---extended-interview?xrs=synd_facebook_062018_tds_96

What an honest and trustworthy man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

That is pretty much what it says so what is your interpretation?  

The case, "raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of constitutional right and the manner of proof.  The Proclamation, is also facially neutral towards religion." https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/read-scotus-travel-ban-decision/index.html

They opted to accept it at face value.  Trying to use it for methods like ZZ mentioned above would merely bring it right back to court.

I might add, I am fine with v3.0.  The first version would have affected over 100 people in my town alone.  V3.0 directly affects none of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The case, "raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of constitutional right and the manner of proof.  The Proclamation, is also facially neutral towards religion." https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/read-scotus-travel-ban-decision/index.html

They opted to accept it at face value.  Trying to use it for methods like ZZ mentioned above would merely bring it right back to court.

I might add, I am fine with v3.0.  The first version would have affected over 100 people in my town alone.  V3.0 directly affects none of them. 

Then change the constitution but as written the executive is fully within his rights to limit immigration as has been done many time before. 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, Merc14 said:

Then change the constitution but as written the Executive is fully within his rights to limit immigration as has been done many time before. 

You missed the part where I said I was fine with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

He should implement a ban on the boarder now. There is more danger coming across it then coming from those countries. He'd probably get the same ruling I'd imagine

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Let's not forget what's motivating this:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the constitution, not Trump.  

It is amazing how you have to explain that to people, isn't it?

I blame Govt Schools.

13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

A federal judge should not have teh ability to dictate to the 50 states based on his personal feelings and that judge should've ruled on what was in the EO, not what was said by Trump on the campaign trail.  Imagine a coiuntry where you could go backland select something said ny a president a decade ago and overrule his constitutional powers based on said statement.  It is absurd but ten again, so is liberalism.

I don't call it "Liberalism" any more, and not just because those people live by labels.

Nothing they do has anything to do with anything you could call Liberal anymore. They are all about mob-rule, dictatorship and the abuse of power (see Hilary Clinton). 

And then there is the abuse of the rest of us, as Maxine Waters and everyone making excuses for her has been advocating. 

 

IMHO, its time to step back and get ready for the terminal phase. The Authoritarian Left has worked themselves up to the point of madness. 

Do not engage.

Stay away from crowds.

Stay alert.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
22 hours ago, aztek said:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-142008850--politics.html

It's good but, a year and a half later thanks to the newly selected Supreme Court of Justice  President Trump selected. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest sitting judge at age 85, was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

85 and put there by Clinton...

Progressives now believe Democrats should give any future Trump nominee what has become known in Washington as “the Garland treatment”.

Prominent Democrats have signaled reservations about resorting to the same tactics, which they argue would risk further eroding institutional norms. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, suggested an overtly partisan pick by Trump would not receive much of an audience with Democrats.

The question is who you put up,” Warren said in an interview with Pod Save America, a political podcast hosted by former Obama aides.

“The people that George W Bush would put in wouldn’t be exactly the same as the people that Barack Obama would put in. But they’d be along the same road.”

Warren noted that the climate had changed, even as she conceded it was counterproductive to follow in McConnell’s footsteps and state from the outset that Democrats would block any Trump nominee regardless of background.

“I think that’s wrong,” she said. “But I do think you send a Neil Gorsuch to us, and the answer is no. We do hearings, we do it substantively, but the answer would be no.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+garland+treatment&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS802US802&oq=the+garland+treatment&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.6066j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
9 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Warren noted that the climate had changed 

Trump has, of course, denied this, saying it was a Chinese conspiracy, not caused by him and even if it was he's not paying anything to deal with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
7 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

It is amazing how you have to explain that to people, isn't it?

I blame Govt Schools.

I don't call it "Liberalism" any more, and not just because those people live by labels.

Nothing they do has anything to do with anything you could call Liberal anymore. They are all about mob-rule, dictatorship and the abuse of power (see Hilary Clinton). 

And then there is the abuse of the rest of us, as Maxine Waters and everyone making excuses for her has been advocating. 

 

IMHO, its time to step back and get ready for the terminal phase. The Authoritarian Left has worked themselves up to the point of madness. 

Do not engage.

Stay away from crowds.

Stay alert.

The democrat party is definitely shifting to the far-far left.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28 year old stone cold socialist just kicked Joe Crowley's **** in New York's 14th district. He is a powerful dem leader, 4th most powerful in the house, and out-raised her 10-1 but still lost by 15%!   She believes all the wonderful in completely impossible things like government jobs, universal health care and open borders.   Usually a part rebounds to the center after being so thoroughly trounced the last decade but the DNC seems to be getting dragged further left. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

completely impossible things like, universal health care

Except in the rest of the world. 

Like the US even has a clue what far far left looks like :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Except in the rest of the world. 

Like the US even has a clue what far far left looks like :D

K now what the far left looks like and I know whose umbrella they live inder in order to afford UHC for their small populations.  Far left looks like Venezuela, a place I am sure you crowed about. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
15 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

K now what the far left looks like and I know whose umbrella they live inder in order to afford UHC for their small populations.  Far left looks like Venezuela, a place I am sure you crowed about. 

So now it IS possible, all of a sudden. You just don't happen to like it. 

Oh no, you really don't know then do you. 

Even Venezuela isn't 'far far left'. 

But then, the US version of 'centrist' is basically right wing to any other country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.