White house asks SC to allow travel ban

[RightyTighty]

Maybe you should care about what four liberals and a centrist on the SC think? Nah, too much work for you.

Maybe I shouldn't. Liberals are worthless cowards but the court will uphold the ban, or, they won't. I think they will. Your trolling has no effect.

That's not trolling. With 4-4-1 court it could go either way. The fact that 9-11 was Saudi Arabia (not on the list) and other Muslim nations (where Trump also does business) are not on the list is not a good start. That makes the list completely ******* arbitrary. Add in people with a right to be here (granted by us) being blocked and you have a ******* mess. The SC does not like those, not in the slightest.

Thanks for welcoming terrorists.

We don't (but Trump would, Saudi Arabia isn't on his list).

You lie. 24/7.

Either learn to spin away or - just STFU.

 

[Hellbilly]

Do you really think we want to hurt the country?

You personally may not. Many here do and they express that each day.

You gotta show me where ANYBODY said they want to hurt the country.

"They never talk about it...they just do it.:
Magneto

Sent from my SCH-I545PP using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[miketx]

Maybe I shouldn't. Liberals are worthless cowards but the court will uphold the ban, or, they won't. I think they will. Your trolling has no effect.

That's not trolling. With 4-4-1 court it could go either way. The fact that 9-11 was Saudi Arabia (not on the list) and other Muslim nations (where Trump also does business) are not on the list is not a good start. That makes the list completely ******* arbitrary. Add in people with a right to be here (granted by us) being blocked and you have a ******* mess. The SC does not like those, not in the slightest.

Thanks for welcoming terrorists.

We don't (but Trump would, Saudi Arabia isn't on his list).

You lie. 24/7.

Either learn to spin away or - just STFU.

Stop hurting Americans.

 

[busybee01]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

 

[miketx]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

 

[jc456]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

he did. You haven't heard Session's talk?

 

[TNHarley]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

he did. You haven't heard Session's talk?

naw. Maybe he did. That would be great.

 

[jc456]

I'm not laying your dim games. Never do. Go ahead and lie all you want, it's what you scum do.

Such a silly little RWNJ. Coward.

So, the games continue.

Asking someone to back up their claims with proof is not a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Parsing words to the extent liberals do actually is a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Don't be silly. Not being able to back up their claims is a RWNJ characteristic from way back. You've used lots of excuses to explain it, but this is the first time I ever heard this one.

what is it you want backed up? your toilet?

 

[miketx]

Such a silly little RWNJ. Coward.

So, the games continue.

Asking someone to back up their claims with proof is not a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Parsing words to the extent liberals do actually is a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Don't be silly. Not being able to back up their claims is a RWNJ characteristic from way back. You've used lots of excuses to explain it, but this is the first time I ever heard this one.

what is it you want backed up? your toilet?

He attempting to deflect like lib shills all do and failing. You see, that used to work, but people can see it now. He's just another pathetic lying shill.

 

[jc456]

So, the games continue.

Asking someone to back up their claims with proof is not a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Parsing words to the extent liberals do actually is a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Don't be silly. Not being able to back up their claims is a RWNJ characteristic from way back. You've used lots of excuses to explain it, but this is the first time I ever heard this one.

what is it you want backed up? your toilet?

He attempting to deflect like lib shills all do and failing. You see, that used to work, but people can see it now. He's just another pathetic lying shill.

it would be helpful to understand what he doesn't understand.

 

[OldLady]

It's my opinion, but I believe the supreme court will uphold the travel ban, supporting the Presidents broad powers, and I think it will be a good thing. Now, I do not care what any liberal thinks about this. You people have shown that you want to hurt the country.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to let revised travel ban take effect

Maybe you should care about what four liberals and a centrist on the SC think? Nah, too much work for you.

Maybe I shouldn't. Liberals are worthless cowards but the court will uphold the ban, or, they won't. I think they will. Your trolling has no effect.

That's not trolling. With 4-4-1 court it could go either way. The fact that 9-11 was Saudi Arabia (not on the list) and other Muslim nations (where Trump also does business) are not on the list is not a good start. That makes the list completely ******* arbitrary. Add in people with a right to be here (granted by us) being blocked and you have a ******* mess. The SC does not like those, not in the slightest.

I don't think it's going to be that close. The lower courts have been really pushing the envelope on this one. I think the travel ban will "pass" with a significant majority of the court behind it. I hate it, but the arguments holding it up are weak constitutionally.

 

[busybee01]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

 

[BULLDOG]

Such a silly little RWNJ. Coward.

So, the games continue.

Asking someone to back up their claims with proof is not a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Parsing words to the extent liberals do actually is a word game, unless you are an idiot.

Don't be silly. Not being able to back up their claims is a RWNJ characteristic from way back. You've used lots of excuses to explain it, but this is the first time I ever heard this one.

what is it you want backed up? your toilet?

Well, his claim was certainly toilet material. This time the little weasel was claiming liberals want to hurt the country. RWNJs make stupid blanket claims like that all the time, but so I asked him to back it up with something credible. As usual, after mumbling a little bit of silliness, he ran like a scared rabbit.

 

[miketx]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

 

[miketx]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

You love illegals. You love muslims. You love sick fags at elementary schools. You love unemployment. You love theft by taxes. You love perversion. You hate Americans.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

You love illegals. You love muslims. You love sick fags at elementary schools. You love unemployment. You love theft by taxes. You love perversion. You hate Americans.

Nope. You're wrong.

 

[busybee01]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

It stops what from coming in? Where is your proof of that? Terrorists are not as stupid as you think. If they are coming into this country, they will find a way around it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hopefully the SC will uphold President Trump's travel ban. It is well within his powers.

None of the lower court judges have ever identified how the travel ban "makes a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for any U.S. citizen or person under U.S. jurisdiction. And most of their objections seem to amount to "That makes things hard on people", as though that somehow reduced the President's powers under US law.

It's as though the President tried to ban travel into the U.S. for anyone from Sweden, and some judge announced that since most people in Sweden are Caucasian, this was an unconstitutionally racist ban on white people entering, despite the fact that it also banned blacks from Sweden; and Indians, Hispanics etc. who are also citizens of Sweden. Therefore President Trump cannot ban people from Sweden from coming into the U.S.

The judges rejection of a ban on travel from the six countries Barack Obama listed as being dangerous in harboring terrorists, on grounds of religion or race, is just as silly as a ban on Swedes.

 

[miketx]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

It stops what from coming in? Where is your proof of that? Terrorists are not as stupid as you think. If they are coming into this country, they will find a way around it.

With scum like you helping, I'm sure they will.