SCOTUS upholds Trump travel ban

[Conservative65]

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.

They did when the Christian baker that refused to do a cake for a *** wedding was punished for practicing their religious beliefs. They placed two whining fags personal desires above what you said the government can't do.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

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.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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.

Since segregation had occurred and was still occurring at the time of Plessy, all Plessy did was uphold what was being done. The case revolved around legal segregation laws within the States, Louisiana in this case. The doctrine set was the segregation in place at that time was OK provided the facilities were equal. Since legal segregation existed BEFORE the ruling and continued AFTER the ruling, noting changed.

Brown v Board of Education was pure judicial activism. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good decision just that it was activist.

The Obamacare ruling, while idiotic, was problematic with me for two reasons. First, forcing someone to buy something in the open market, to me, violates all sorts of things related to principles those supporting the decision said the government shouldn't do on other issues. Secondly, Obama himself said that Obamacare was absolutely not a tax. When the Court upheld Obamacare, their reasoning was for the very thing Obama it absolutely wasn't. Where was Obama saying, "you're wrong"?

As for Citizens United, it was nothing more than the Court saying a corporation, union, etc. was OK in spending whatever it wanted on advertising and such. It didn't allow unlimited contributions to individual candidates. How is advertising any different for political campaigns than it is for that business to advertise a product it sells?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think they hear the case til Oct. This is only a temp order.

 

[USApatriotz]

24,000 Muslim refugees BLOCKED from coming here by the Supreme court who agreed with Trump! Only wish we could make it PERMANENT!!

Supreme Court agrees with Trump administration, says some refugees can be barred for now

 

[USApatriotz]

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

 

[radical right]

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.

 

[USApatriotz]

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.

WRONG! The Supreme court upheld Trump's travel ban in July & prevented 24,000 mostly Muslim refugees from coming here! Now the NEW travel ban on 8 nations is permanent!!

Anytime 24,000 (some pro Sharia) Muslims are prevented from coming here that's a GREAT achievement!

 

[P@triot]

So....much.....winning

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...

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.

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban while legal challenges continue

 

[USApatriotz]

The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban because they know the LAW!!

Here is the pertinent law, Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182, courtesy of Cornell University Law’s website:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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

One more time, for the Stupid Liberals, here is the US Code Justifying Trump’s Executive Order

 

[WEATHER53]

It did not matter that it was wrong the lower court judges just did what they wanted. Like witch hunt trials

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It did not matter that it was wrong the judges just did what they wanted. Like witch hunt trials

Churning up that salt factory I see...


Scrub

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

More than that is when did that ever happen in our lifetime? When Newt was running for President, that was his exact thought. He said Congress should bring judges to the floor to answer questions of their conduct.