Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Supreme Court only allowed half of the ban to be temporarily reinstated, and Republicans blow their load screaming victory?
Maybe you guys should wait until after their ruling, when they argue over whether or not the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against muslims.
Good luck with that one:
View attachment 148981
Which doesn't supercede the 1st Amendment. The government cannot establish laws for or against a religion. That's the whole debate over the travel ban, please try to keep up.
The Supreme Court only allowed half of the ban to be temporarily reinstated, and Republicans blow their load screaming victory?
Maybe you guys should wait until after their ruling, when they argue over whether or not the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against muslims.
Good luck with that one:
View attachment 148981
Which doesn't supercede the 1st Amendment. The government cannot establish laws for or against a religion. That's the whole debate over the travel ban, please try to keep up.
No, I think it is you who should try to keep up.
Commie leftist judges are bastardizing our constitution to stop the Trump agenda. It's purely political with them. It has nothing to do with the constitution; the are only using it to try and disguise being an activist judge.
Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean a judge is an activist. I don't give a shit about nonsensical partisan theater or illogical discussions about left vs right. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong.
Judges are not to make law, judges are to judge whether the laws are followed properly. US immigration code 1182 was passed by Congress many years ago. And as the law states, a US President can ban any group of people for any reason and for as long as he feels necessary.
The president is not a dictator. They have to follow the constitution just like everybody else. And the constitution clearly states that laws cannot be made "Respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The president cannot make a travel ban that directly discriminates against muslims. And while his travel ban may not directly call out muslims, every country he listed, plus his past remarks, has lead several judges to believe that Trump is directly discriminating against muslims.
People from other countries do not have our Constitutional rights even if that was the case. No foreigner has the right to enter this country via our US Constitution.
This country, other countries, doesn't matter: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The Supreme Court only allowed half of the ban to be temporarily reinstated, and Republicans blow their load screaming victory?
Maybe you guys should wait until after their ruling, when they argue over whether or not the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against muslims.
Good luck with that one:
View attachment 148981
Which doesn't supercede the 1st Amendment. The government cannot establish laws for or against a religion. That's the whole debate over the travel ban, please try to keep up.
No, I think it is you who should try to keep up.
Commie leftist judges are bastardizing our constitution to stop the Trump agenda. It's purely political with them. It has nothing to do with the constitution; the are only using it to try and disguise being an activist judge.
Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean a judge is an activist. I don't give a shit about nonsensical partisan theater or illogical discussions about left vs right. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong.
Judges are not to make law, judges are to judge whether the laws are followed properly. US immigration code 1182 was passed by Congress many years ago. And as the law states, a US President can ban any group of people for any reason and for as long as he feels necessary.
The president is not a dictator. They have to follow the constitution just like everybody else. And the constitution clearly states that laws cannot be made "Respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The president cannot make a travel ban that directly discriminates against muslims. And while his travel ban may not directly call out muslims, every country he listed, plus his past remarks, has lead several judges to believe that Trump is directly discriminating against muslims.
People from other countries do not have our Constitutional rights even if that was the case. No foreigner has the right to enter this country via our US Constitution.
This country, other countries, doesn't matter: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If their decision brings about social or political change, that's the very definition of activist. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. That was activism.
What you're doing is thinking that because you support it, it's not activism.
Which doesn't supercede the 1st Amendment. The government cannot establish laws for or against a religion. That's the whole debate over the travel ban, please try to keep up.
No, I think it is you who should try to keep up.
Commie leftist judges are bastardizing our constitution to stop the Trump agenda. It's purely political with them. It has nothing to do with the constitution; the are only using it to try and disguise being an activist judge.
Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean a judge is an activist. I don't give a shit about nonsensical partisan theater or illogical discussions about left vs right. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong.
Judges are not to make law, judges are to judge whether the laws are followed properly. US immigration code 1182 was passed by Congress many years ago. And as the law states, a US President can ban any group of people for any reason and for as long as he feels necessary.
The president is not a dictator. They have to follow the constitution just like everybody else. And the constitution clearly states that laws cannot be made "Respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The president cannot make a travel ban that directly discriminates against muslims. And while his travel ban may not directly call out muslims, every country he listed, plus his past remarks, has lead several judges to believe that Trump is directly discriminating against muslims.
People from other countries do not have our Constitutional rights even if that was the case. No foreigner has the right to enter this country via our US Constitution.
This country, other countries, doesn't matter: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If their decision brings about social or political change, that's the very definition of activist. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. That was activism.
What you're doing is thinking that because you support it, it's not activism.
If anything Plessy vs Ferguson would be the "activist" ruling in that situation. There were no legal grounds for segregation based on race. And while the arguments supporting PvF made sense (in a pre civil rights era) , it still wasn't right by the Constitution. Brown vs BoE was correcting that. But, that was a different time and things are viewed differently now.
I thought the ruling on the ACA and Citizens United were both idiotic, but I won't call it activism that was making laws. Just a decision I don't agree with.
That's the difference between me and other people on this board. I don't demonize and attack everything I don't agree with. I admit and accept that people can have a different opinion than me, and that it doesn't make them wrong.
The main argument that's going to be heard over the travel ban is whether or not the president's "promises" on the campaign trail can be used in a ruling against the travel ban. That's what I'm waiting to hear.
USA Today: Supreme Court gives Trump a victory on travel ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump's travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.
The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.
In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case
USA Today: Supreme Court gives Trump a victory on travel ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump's travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.
The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.
In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case
What victory. The USSC left in place a partial overruling of Trumps EO, which since its now moot, stands as the final determination. Meaning the first two EO's have been ruled partially unconstitutional. And the third has to start from square one.
There wasn’t a single person alive that didn’t understand that President Trump’s Executive Order was 100% constitutional. Sadly, progressive judges in lower courts attempted to shoot it down out of political activism. They should be criminally charged and removed from the bench. They knowingly violated the law by ruling something “illegal” when they unequivocally knew damn well that is was 100% legal.The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Trump’s request to fully enforce his revised order banning travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries...
Churning up that salt factory I see...It did not matter that it was wrong the judges just did what they wanted. Like witch hunt trials
It did not matter that it was wrong the lower court judges just did what they wanted. Like witch hunt trials
The problem is they can't be held accountable. Judges have way too much power in this country. Yes, the SC will overturn them, but look at the waste of time and money. To say that a law--which was created years ago, is now discriminatory just because of who is President, is certainly an abuse of power and 100% political.
The problem is they can't be held accountable. Judges have way too much power in this country. Yes, the SC will overturn them, but look at the waste of time and money. To say that a law--which was created years ago, is now discriminatory just because of who is President, is certainly an abuse of power and 100% political.
Oh, no, they can so be held accountable by the impeachment powers of Congress.
The problem is that the Congressional leadership doesnt have the balls to actually use their Constitutional power.
