The dissent of Sotomayor/Ginsburg in this case is an embarrassment to our nation. They cite Trump's stump speeches at length and attempt to prove that he had unconstitutional motivations for the executive order. These people are operating far outside of a rules-based framework. Their job is is to evaluate whether the policy itself violated the Constitution or other federal law, not whether Trump's motivations were worthy of criticism.
It's interesting that you only reference two of the four dissenters as "legislating from the bench" here, suggesting that their dissent - and correct me if I'm wrong - was not legitimate dissent, but some sort of abuse of judicial power/agenda driven. If that is what you're hinting at, what about the other two dissenters? Were their critiques legitimate, rather than "legislating from the bench"? And the five who supported the travel ban - no legislating from the bench going on there, I'm guessing, since you only drew attention to the dissenters?
As a general question, not just for you but rather everyone here, how often do you see things that you disagree with a court doing as "legislating from the bench" and how often do you see this being the case of things you agree with? It would be an interesting self-analysis to conduct, that. I wonder how many posters here, if they were to do this, would be able to draw some conclusions that could lead to significant self betterment?
So the ruling is a ruling based on its constitutionality, but the legislation is still terrible and doesn't protect the U.S. This may have backlash on muslims already in the country. Homebred terrorists exist in large amounts.
The first thing I thought of when I heard of the ruling was this:
Blind man ask me forgiveness
I won't deny myself
Disrespect you have given
Your suffering's my wealth
I feed off pain, force fed to love it
And now I swallow whole
I'll never live in the past Let freedom ring with a shotgun blast
Burn my fist to the concrete
My fear is my strength
Power, rage unbound strength
Been pounded by the streets
Cyanide blood burns down the skyline
Hatred is purity
The bullet connects at last
Let freedom ring with a shotgun blast
Scarred
Pour the salt in the wound
I look forward to the Dem's spastic reactions. I foresee the buzzwords "racist", "islamaphobia" and "xenophobia" being all over social media as celebrities whine from their gated communities on their fenced off properties in their mansions.
“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.”
This is already federal law (Title 8 of US Code, § 1182). The majority didn't need to legislate to arrive at the obvious conclusion.
Also, it's not terrible. What of the following do you have an issue with?
The baseline included three components.
The first, “identity-management information,” focused on whether a foreign government ensures the integrity of travel documents by issuing electronic passports, reporting lost or stolen passports, and making available additional identity-related information.
Second, the agencies considered the extent to which the country discloses information on criminal history and suspected terrorist links, provides travel document exemplars, and facilitates the U. S. Government’s receipt of information about airline passengers and crews traveling to the United States.
Finally, the agencies weighed various indicators of national security risk, including whether the foreign state is a known or potential terrorist safe haven and whether it regularly declines to receive returning nationals following final orders of removal from the United States.
Not really. I'm just wondering why we aren't following through on the whole point of the ban: to have time to make a new extreme vetting program. What's taking so long? They've had a lot more than 90 days to do that now haven't they?
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
