Supreme Court rules 8-1 in Trump's favor on the travel ban, so Judge Ginsburg is racist.

[ColonelAngus]

If you supported the travel ban, Progs claimed you are racist.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an official SCOTUS ruling in support of Trump...so she is racist.

Such a shame. It must be devastating for the left to find out one of their heros is racist.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wait. This happened on a Sunday with the media not mentioning a thing?

 

[dudmuck]

 

[Pete7469]

She is an idiot, that much is certified fact.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Wait. This happened on a Sunday with the media not mentioning a thing?

It happened 5 days ago....with the media not mentioning a thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If you supported the travel ban, Progs claimed you are racist." Some Progs say that, certainly not a majority.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you supported the travel ban, Progs claimed you are racist.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an official SCOTUS ruling in support of Trump...so she is racist.

Such a shame. It must be devastating for the left to find out one of their heros is racist.

Haha, what a bunch of uninformed goofballs. What happened is that the SCOTUS dismissed a challenge to the original travel ban, because it has since been replaced by a new one. So, the case was moot.

Here are the SCOTUS judges, registering their "support" of the ban (heh heh):

""We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order."

And yes, geniuses, it was literally all over the media.

 

[Fenton Lum]

If you supported the travel ban, Progs claimed you are racist.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an official SCOTUS ruling in support of Trump...so she is racist.

Such a shame. It must be devastating for the left to find out one of their heros is racist.

Well hell, I was really pulling for concentration/internment camps run by Sherriff Joe.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wait. This happened on a Sunday with the media not mentioning a thing?

It happened 5 days ago....with the media not mentioning a thing.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project was dismissed on a technicality - because the suit was about a provision of the law that has already expired.

It is not the more relevant challenge to the "travel ban" - Trump v. Hawaii - which is about a provision that is still in effect until the end of Oct.

It's pretty safe to say that the Supreme Court is not done with the issue.

 

[Fenton Lum]

If you supported the travel ban, Progs claimed you are racist.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an official SCOTUS ruling in support of Trump...so she is racist.

Such a shame. It must be devastating for the left to find out one of their heros is racist.

Haha, what a bunch of uninformed goofballs. What happened is that the SCOTUS dismissed a challenge to the original travel ban, because it has since been replaced by a new one. So, the case was moot.

Here are the SCOTUS judges, registering their "support" of the ban (heh heh):

""We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order."

And yes, geniuses, it was literally all over the media.

These are our "exceptional" americans don'tcha know.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a link to the opinion. It's less than a page.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-1436.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

Wait. This happened on a Sunday with the media not mentioning a thing?

It happened 5 days ago....with the media not mentioning a thing.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project was dismissed on a technicality - because the suit was about a provision of the law that has already expired.

It is not the more relevant challenge to the "travel ban" - Trump v. Hawaii - which is about a provision that is still in effect until the end of Oct.

It's pretty safe to say that the Supreme Court is not done with the issue.

No they're not, but they vacated all the previous stays in enforcement from the lower courts. That basically put everything back to square one.


.

 

[ColonelAngus]

POTUS was within his rights to set the ban from 7 countries labeled State sponsors of terrorism by Obama.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Media should be all over racist judge Ginsburg

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wait. This happened on a Sunday with the media not mentioning a thing?

It happened 5 days ago....with the media not mentioning a thing.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project was dismissed on a technicality - because the suit was about a provision of the law that has already expired.

It is not the more relevant challenge to the "travel ban" - Trump v. Hawaii - which is about a provision that is still in effect until the end of Oct.

It's pretty safe to say that the Supreme Court is not done with the issue.

No they're not, but they vacated all the previous stays in enforcement from the lower courts. That basically put everything back to square one.


.

They did not vacate all of the stays - they partially vacated one of them, and that was months ago, not 5 days ago - and it was heavily covered in the media.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Sorry about this stupid thread. I admit I didn't actually read any articles about this, and instead merely saw a headline worded positively toward Trump before I sprinted here to start this idiotic thread. Furthermore, I apologize for my stupid misrepresentation of the media, given the fact that this story was covered by virtually every single media outlet. I will take more care in the future not to waste everyone's time, not to waste USMB's bandwidth, and not to so thoroughly embarrass myself."

- ColonelAngus

 

[ColonelAngus]

This should clear up any confusion

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Case on Expired Travel Ban

 

[JakeStarkey]

Them on the Far Right love fake news.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If the injunction on the ban had expired without a supporting ruling, the ruling to block the ban was obviously bullshit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the injunction on the ban had expired without a supporting ruling, the ruling to block the ban was obviously bullshit.

The injunction on the ban didn't expire, the relevant section of the ban expired.