CDZ Supreme Court Upholds Liberal Travel Ban?

[Toronado3800]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

Not really debating the ban itself here. Some of the wording in the articles got my interest.

My train of thought is this expansion of Presidential power is pretty liberal and these poorly trained news people keep calling it the "Conservative" court when it is not. Its a court voting for its team of choice.

Right, wrong or indifferent for the ban, its a Trump / Republican thing from an Executive Order. Between 2008 and 2016 I read plenty on here about the evils of Executive Orders and how unconstitutional those were bypassing congress and the like.

 

[candycorn]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

Not really debating the ban itself here. Some of the wording in the articles got my interest.

My train of thought is this expansion of Presidential power is pretty liberal and these poorly trained news people keep calling it the "Conservative" court when it is not. Its a court voting for its team of choice.

Right, wrong or indifferent for the ban, its a Trump / Republican thing from an Executive Order. Between 2008 and 2016 I read plenty on here about the evils of Executive Orders and how unconstitutional those were bypassing congress and the like.

Good post. Never thought of it that way.

 

[DGS49]

Like many recent high-profile cases, this one illustrates the unworthiness of the Leftist faction of the Court.

This was not a "close" case. It was not a "Muslim travel ban," in any sense of those words. 98% of the Muslims in the world were totally unaffected by this "ban." Christians, Jews, Mormons, and atheists in the affected countries were treated equally with Muslims. There was no attempt to separate out the Muslim applicants from others.

And foreign nationals who happen to be Muslims have NO RIGHTS under U.S. immigration law. If they WERE discriminated against because of their religion, there is no legal or Constitutional principle in play. The President has this power. It may make people uncomfortable, but there is no Constitutional principle that prohibits it. The Constitution merely provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. That's it. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH non-citizens wanting to come here.

And there is NO BASIS in law or precedent to juxtapose the President's campaign rhetoric with an Executive Order to discern his motivation, PARTICULARLY when the President has presented a perfectly tenable justification, to wit, the inability of these countries to vet applicants for a U.S. travel visa. In other words, the U.S. State Department has no way of knowing whether an applicant is or has been an active terrorist, or has been associated with any terrorist organization.

Again, this was not a close call. Any USSC Justice who voted against this order is a political hack, unworthy of sitting on the Bench.

If you encounter one of these four justices at a restaurant or any other public place....

Nah, I'd better not finish that thought.

 

[Moonglow]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

Not really debating the ban itself here. Some of the wording in the articles got my interest.

My train of thought is this expansion of Presidential power is pretty liberal and these poorly trained news people keep calling it the "Conservative" court when it is not. Its a court voting for its team of choice.

Right, wrong or indifferent for the ban, its a Trump / Republican thing from an Executive Order. Between 2008 and 2016 I read plenty on here about the evils of Executive Orders and how unconstitutional those were bypassing congress and the like.

There is no liberal travel ban there was one the Democrats put in place..

 

[depotoo]

What I find interesting is when a Democratic administration put in pretty much the same executive order, the Dems had no problem with it. Suddenly the executive branch doesn’t have that power, when a Rep administration does it, is what we heard, simply because, well, it is a Republican doing it-

According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.

Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.

Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback.

At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.

In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.

So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

Yet, I don’t remember the Left freaking out over this. I certainly don’t remember them going indiscriminately insane when the Obama White House stopped processing Iraqi visas for six months in 2011 when—surprise! —Al-Qaeda operatives feigned refugee status to get relocatedto Bowling Green, Kentucky. And yes, some of the visa applicants who were screwed over worked as intelligence assets and interpreters for the U.S. military, according to ABC News. But remember, there was a Democrat in the Oval Office, so it was okay at the time.

Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order

You didn’t see the right up in arms protesting the actions then. Nor the left...

 

[Moonglow]

There is no "left" travel ban, there is one that the Democrats put in place years ago....Being a political science nut I can tell you people sound stupid as a four-year-old when you try to align and assign missive nomenclature to parties, philosophies, agendas legal actions and race...

 

[Crepitus]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

Not really debating the ban itself here. Some of the wording in the articles got my interest.

My train of thought is this expansion of Presidential power is pretty liberal and these poorly trained news people keep calling it the "Conservative" court when it is not. Its a court voting for its team of choice.

Right, wrong or indifferent for the ban, its a Trump / Republican thing from an Executive Order. Between 2008 and 2016 I read plenty on here about the evils of Executive Orders and how unconstitutional those were bypassing congress and the like.

Not a conservative court, a republican one.

Also a clear cut example of judicial activism at it worst.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is a Big Government Progress court dominated by Big Government Republicans.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Also a clear cut example of judicial activism at it worst.

Better get used to it, for those of us warning against judicial activism from the left this was the only avenue available...don't worry, if the liberal activism of the past is any yardstick this will only last 50 years and will be met mostly with silence when you bring it up...it's your time to enjoy.

 

[Toronado3800]

Also a clear cut example of judicial activism at it worst.

Better get used to it, for those of us warning against judicial activism from the left this was the only avenue available...don't worry, if the liberal activism of the past is any yardstick this will only last 50 years and will be met mostly with silence when you bring it up...it's your time to enjoy.

I think the inconsistency of terminology is what humors me the most. Its perfectly fine and logical for Republicans to be for or against that. Its difficult to yell small government all day then go about creating big government and having people take you seriously though. Democrats are less organized, heck, their party came apart in '68, but the old hippie crowd anyway has an easier time finding consistency in their views.....if only I could get them to follow my love of the military and the death penalty lol

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I think the inconsistency of terminology is what humors me the most. Its perfectly fine and logical for Republicans to be for or against that. Its difficult to yell small government all day then go about creating big government and having people take you seriously though. Democrats are less organized, heck, their party came apart in '68, but the old hippie crowd anyway has an easier time finding consistency in their views.....if only I could get them to follow my love of the military and the death penalty lol

I don't disagree with your post especially the second half of it, and it was in fact the 68 convention where the communist faction took complete control of the party...as for the gop they can spend with the best of them, but it is the permanent spending that cannot be cut without gutting the patient that needs to be curbed...todays judicial announcement [kennedy] will really put a crimp in the lefts style

 

[Crepitus]

Also a clear cut example of judicial activism at it worst.

Better get used to it, for those of us warning against judicial activism from the left this was the only avenue available...don't worry, if the liberal activism of the past is any yardstick this will only last 50 years and will be met mostly with silence when you bring it up...it's your time to enjoy.

What judicial activism from the left?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What judicial activism from the left?

way too much/many to list...the liberals have been legislating from the bench since the 60's, even yesterdays minority opinion was borne out of activism but for you pretend you do not know this was going on for 50 years means I would have walk you through law school which is how the left operates in debate now that its time is up...no more left wing activism for you crepy

 

[Toronado3800]

Also a clear cut example of judicial activism at it worst.

Better get used to it, for those of us warning against judicial activism from the left this was the only avenue available...don't worry, if the liberal activism of the past is any yardstick this will only last 50 years and will be met mostly with silence when you bring it up...it's your time to enjoy.

What judicial activism from the left?

Left in these lands means big government power? In this case I'll assume he is talking about most of the privacy challenges to the Homeland Security Act which were turned down by the court in fits of big government activism?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right in these lands means big government power: tax reform, trying to build a 40 billion wall. Executive orders to people from mostly Muslim countries.

 

[Crepitus]

What judicial activism from the left?

way too much/many to list...the liberals have been legislating from the bench since the 60's, even yesterdays minority opinion was borne out of activism but for you pretend you do not know this was going on for 50 years means I would have walk you through law school which is how the left operates in debate now that its time is up...no more left wing activism for you crepy

"Way to much to list" is a cop-out. Unless/until you prove differently I'm going to have to assume you are just regurgitating rwnj talking points.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

"Way to much to list" is a cop-out. Unless/until you prove differently I'm going to have to assume you are just regurgitating rwnj talking points.

well ok, because I don't think I can get through the day if you assume that so I'll play your game of diversion but let me make sure I got the rules of your left wing ruse down, here they are:
first: I give you a short list of activism by the court
second: then you torture both the truth and the language in a lame and transparent attempt to claim it isn't so.
third: you pretend this is that and that is this
fourth: you then play the race card and the activism of the left wing courts is just an after thought when all is said and done.
so get your race card out and we can begin.

 

[Crepitus]

"Way to much to list" is a cop-out. Unless/until you prove differently I'm going to have to assume you are just regurgitating rwnj talking points.

well ok, because I don't think I can get through the day if you assume that so I'll play your game of diversion but let me make sure I got the rules of your left wing ruse down, here they are:
first: I give you a short list of activism by the court
second: then you torture both the truth and the language in a lame and transparent attempt to claim it isn't so.
third: you pretend this is that and that is this
fourth: you then play the race card and the activism of the left wing courts is just an after thought when all is said and done.
so get your race card out and we can begin.

Ah, more deflection to hide your inability to back up your lies.

See I've got your conservative tactics down. You tell a lie. Then you tell another one to cover it up. Then you have to tell another to cover that one. Somewhere along the line you will say "but but but Hillary/obama", then you will accuse me of something that only happened in you alledged mind.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Ah, more deflection to hide your inability to back up your lies.

See I've got your conservative tactics down. You tell a lie. Then you tell another one to cover it up. Then you have to tell another to cover that one. Somewhere along the line you will say "but but but Hillary/obama", then you will accuse me of something that only happened in you alledged mind.

So agreeing to go along with your previous post is now a deflection? I may have to agree with you on that.
see rule two for the rest of your lack of reasoning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

Not really debating the ban itself here. Some of the wording in the articles got my interest.

My train of thought is this expansion of Presidential power is pretty liberal and these poorly trained news people keep calling it the "Conservative" court when it is not. Its a court voting for its team of choice.

Right, wrong or indifferent for the ban, its a Trump / Republican thing from an Executive Order. Between 2008 and 2016 I read plenty on here about the evils of Executive Orders and how unconstitutional those were bypassing congress and the like.

It is NOT liberal at all IT is solely the Presidents authority to declare such a ban always has been.