Travel Ban in the Supreme Court

[Cecilie1200]

The travel ban was supposed to be temporary - while the government took 3 months to get it's ducks in a row and figure out how to better vet. It's been 15 months. What have they been doing in the meantime with all that time?

Fighting to even be allowed to impose it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The travel ban was supposed to be temporary - while the government took 3 months to get it's ducks in a row and figure out how to better vet. It's been 15 months. What have they been doing in the meantime with all that time?

A timeline of Trump's battle with the courts to keep his travel ban alive

A battle to force the Supremes to issue a final ruling.............So now we will see.

But WHAT have they done in the meantime to fix the underlying problem they claimed the travel ban was put in place for? Anything? Anything at all?

How are they supposed to do things predicated on the imposition of the travel ban, if they haven't actually been able to impose the travel ban?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Power is a two edged sword.............I'm not a fan of giving more power to the Federal Gov't.........but also see that a temp ban is different from a permanent one.........................If in the 90 day veting........some are found potentially dangerous........then a legal ban can be pursued.............

So it's a Catch22............

I don't know that the travel ban IS "giving more power to the federal government", though. It's actually them exercising power they technically already have . . . assuming the screaming leftists let them do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unless there is a constitutionality challange, the statute giving the president ultimate authority to control imigration policy is quite clear.

Except he can’t violate other parts of the constitution.

Which he hasn't done, assuming you're talking about the ACTUAL Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy one you wrote in your own demented imagination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regardless what you call it, the ban is aimed at Muslims.

View attachment 190034

It's aimed at Nations who harbour those who have carried out acts of murder and are cloistered together there vowing to do it again
Emotive sappiness is no way to go thru life

Then let the ban say "nations" and no allude to inhabitants at all. Carter did that. To insist on naming "muslims" is counterproductive and sappy.

 

[miketx]

The travel ban was supposed to be temporary - while the government took 3 months to get it's ducks in a row and figure out how to better vet. It's been 15 months. What have they been doing in the meantime with all that time?

Fight false accusation after false accusation.

 

[dblack]

The travel ban was supposed to be temporary - while the government took 3 months to get it's ducks in a row and figure out how to better vet. It's been 15 months. What have they been doing in the meantime with all that time?

Isn't that the excuse for most of the bad laws on the books?

 

[WEATHER53]

Regardless what you call it, the ban is aimed at Muslims.

View attachment 190034

It's aimed at Nations who harbour those who have carried out acts of murder and are cloistered together there vowing to do it again
Emotive sappiness is no way to go thru life

Then let the ban say "nations" and no allude to inhabitants at all. Carter did that. To insist on naming "muslims" is counterproductive and sappy.

He did not name Muslims. Libbies took that fantastic step of identification

 

[Timmy]

Unless there is a constitutionality challange, the statute giving the president ultimate authority to control imigration policy is quite clear.

Except he can’t violate other parts of the constitution.

Which he hasn't done, assuming you're talking about the ACTUAL Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy one you wrote in your own demented imagination.

Yes. The actual constitution. For example , if his motive is based on religion (which it is ) then his ban is illegal .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unless there is a constitutionality challange, the statute giving the president ultimate authority to control imigration policy is quite clear.

Except he can’t violate other parts of the constitution.

Which he hasn't done, assuming you're talking about the ACTUAL Constitution, as opposed to the fantasy one you wrote in your own demented imagination.

Yes. The actual constitution. For example , if his motive is based on religion (which it is ) then his ban is illegal .

And now you're going to explain how you came to that conclusion. Wait, lemme get some popcorn, 'cause this is sure to be some funny shit. Okay, lay it on me.

 

[The Original Tree]

Executive Orders are not Law and this one had an expiration date.

What are The Courts going to do?

Declare The President Emperor and declare his E.O.s Divine Decrees?

But just the E.O.s they like will become permanent law, not the ones they disagree with.

It’s absurd it’s even gone his far.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And this conservative Court will uphold the Muslim ban.

Calling it a Muslim ban is a lie.

The Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact

What's wrong with a Muslim ban? That thrill-killing religion is a threat to civilization's existence.