Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

[ShadowRun]

Trump is still winning ? Dang #arewetiredyet #liberaltears taste good. I would imagine this whole time they have been working on a vetting process just because they don’t stupidly talk open about policies like Obama doesn’t mean they haven’t been working on it. Obama’s ISIS was awesome, announce where you would be bombing. How is ISIS doing these days under Trump ?

 

[JamesRussler]

Keep your head down for a couple weeks until those dubs clear. The forum can't afford to lose you.

Appreciated man! I'll stick around.

 

[dontsnitch]

Not everyone is taking this as well as the WR.

 

[Pessimystic]

Sorry I'm about to head out for the day. Feel free to click back and read by posts again yourself.

<45>
Concession accepted.

 

[AlexDB9]

Not everyone is taking this as well as the WR.

All I got from that is Trump 2020, how embarrassing

 

[bushman505]

Not everyone is taking this as well as the WR.

Imagine getting on twitter and posting that....just lol.

 

[dontsnitch]

Imagine getting on twitter and posting that....just lol.

I've seen more embarrassing articles raging about Trump. Here is a guy that was twice nominated for a Pulitzer writing an article titled Hitler was a hero.

 

[BudKing8806]

Not everyone is taking this as well as the WR.

Jesus lol!!! What a little bitch.

 

[glenwo2]

Not everyone is taking this as well as the WR.

Love the first response though :

 

[glenwo2]

One more :

 

[scoopj]

Full decision here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

5-4.

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.

Bingo. And the absence of likes by certain regular posters is quite revealing.

 

[Pessimystic]

Because we don't get refugees from Saudi Arabia.

lol, it was sarcasm.

 

[dontsnitch]

One more :

LOL, yeah, I don't remember Jews killing themselves to sneak into Nazi Germany at all costs, I think they were trying to leave, but my history is a little rusty.

 

[PHATV]

He wins again!!!

 

[Pessimystic]

Imagine getting on twitter and posting that....just lol.

He actually says "we fight"... just lmfao... I'll bet he was shaking and crying when he wrote that. Needless to say, nobody on the Right is remotely worried about the body-by-soy crowd.

 

[Fawlty]

This might a victory for everyone. I ask muh libruls to consider this...

We started with a horrible unconstitutional policy of banning all Muslims. By the time reality scrubbed the hideous Trump agenda several times, we were left with a restriction that is justifiable.

It may not be right to look at this as "We lose because the agenda just made the minimum number of concessions to get by." It might be right to celebrate the fact that the administration's terrible idea was browbeaten into being legal and reasonable.

 

[aitkenmike]

Translation: I don't care that daddy hasn't bothered with a vetting program.





What countries on the list are responsible for attacks in the US?

Well obviously Saudi Arabia, since most of the 9/11 attackers came from th....

oh.

As you were.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Another win for Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

Trump's executive order clearly placed a ban on immigration from specific nations (an expressly stated right of the President in the Constitution) and not an entire religion. It really isn't relevant what Trump said a year prior. It matters what he actually did and stated in his order. It is concerning that the conservative justices and liberal justices are so far apart on this. It should have been a unanimous decision upholding Trump's order.

 

[Philo-Publius]

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?

Yes, they ruled correctly, but since the original proposed deadline for it to last expired over a year ago, it's all quite academic in the present.

Resolving the vetting process involves those foreign governments improving their own records and their communication with the U.S. It's not all on the U.S. government to resolve the problem. The 90-day ban is obviously renewable as long as the President would like to renew it.

 

[Execute]

This might a victory for everyone. I ask muh libruls to consider this...

We started with a horrible unconstitutional policy of banning all Muslims. By the time reality scrubbed the hideous Trump agenda several times, we were left with a restriction that is justifiable.

It may not be right to look at this as "We lose because the agenda just made the minimum number of concessions to get by." It might be right to celebrate the fact that the administration's terrible idea was browbeaten into being legal and reasonable.

Am I the only left leaning person here that wasn't surprised by this?