Supreme Court's conservative justices appear to back Trump's travel ban - Polidicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-consider-trumps-travel-ban-and-the-presidents-authority/2018/04/24/7413b180-480a-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.87f2a082030e Seems likely it will be upheld, from this

the greater implication is if a president just keeps issuing "temporary" bans they can circumvent the courts much like molvaney's temporary appointment to the cfpb is anything but.

Ive read it, the judges are thinking the president has authority because its an "national security issue". Which is stupid because damning multiple countries because thay have muslims is just pure baseless racisism.

It's not anti-Muslim, it's anti-arab, he's a giant fucking bigot.

That wasn't the reasoning given in the order. It was the implied reasoning argued by the lower courts. The reasoning given in the order was that these specific countries had a higher risk associated with that as evidenced by the fact that they didn't bad other Muslim majority countries.

Oh, because every muslim specifically from those banned countries are just evil. Shit the country that the Muslims that committed 9/11 isn't even banned ffs. This is trump doing a feel good measure (for himself and his party) on a non issue.

Whether it's a good idea or not is political, not legal. I'm fine with that political argument being made by democrats: that this was a stupid and needless ban.

Except anyone with half a mind can tell it is targeting with no way to prove it will do anything but hurt anyone whos from there. The only people it targets is 99% muslims. I can look at the bill without context and say its just a handful of countries, but with how the dickhead in chief says its about dangerous muslims, you can tell hes just banning because of a skin color.

So is it about being a Muslim or about skin color? I'm not asking that as some sort of trick question, it just seems like you're using them interchangeably when a HUGE number of the world's Muslims aren't Arab, or even middle eastern. Again, it isn't up the court to decide whether it's a good idea or not. Like the justice in this article mentioned, the courts don't have the national security information to make that call. If this is a "muslim ban," then it's incredibly ineffective as such.

I mean, the travel ban is completely ridiculous in concept, especially now that it's been so long since it was initially meant to be enacted. It was supposed to start early in the presidency, and last around 100 days so that Trump could "Figure out what the hell is going on!". Now it's a year and a half later, there have been no acts of terrorism on US soil perpetrated by anyone from the countries listed on the ban, and the administration seems to have done nothing to try and "figure out what the hell is going on" At this point the only reason Trump's still trying to enact the ban is to prove that he doesn't lose.

I can't say this wouldn't happen, because they would have done this anyway if it was the Bush era. Party lines yadda yadda.

The fucked thing is too, some of the worst mass shootings we've seen yet has happened during his presidency, and they were by Americans, not "Terrorists" (AKA, the real bad guys, according to republicans)

I could understand why a travel ban might have been enacted during the Bush era, especially post 9/11. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it but I could understand it. But they DIDN'T enact one, even when you could argue there was a more credible threat of Islamic terror attacks. Which makes trying to enact a travel ban in this day and age sound even more stupid.

Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a co.. So let's be clear here, it's pretty much been admitted by players involved that the intention of the order is as such. I'd say that it goes against the spirit of the law at the very least. Now you can argue that if it technically doesn't break constitutional law by skirting it then the courts have no business in shooting it down, and I s'pose you'd probably be right, but if I'd figured out a way to legally murder my neighbor I doubt folks would be particularly onboard with that, and likewise it doesn't sit right with me that "I want to misuse my executive powers to do things that shouldn't be legal legally" is something that went into this whole shitshow. I also think that attention should be called to the poor implementation of the order as well. Cutting off travel overnight as some kind of crazy emergency stopgap measure and stranding hundreds of folks at the airport, separating families, and causing a massive legal shitstorm during the first tiptoe steps of your presidency is some pretty incredible incompetence. Especially considering the fact that there hasn't been a single incident that would've been stopped had the ban still been ongoing. Just kinda' awful policy all around, and definitely doesn't give me a picture of an America where rule of law or sensible executive policy reigns supreme.

I know! Ban all guns until we "figure out what the hell is going on!"

Yet when it comes to the country our worst non-state attackers ever came from: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/23/world/23orb/23orb-master768.jpg

Trump is happy to do deals numbering in the 10s of billions with the most extremist Muslim government on earth, the government which is responsible for most Islamic extremism today and still is the biggest funder of it. He's happy to go there and shake hands with them and call them friends, yet Syrian refugees, mainly terrified innocent civilians who have suffered as a consequence of all this, are completely and utterly attacked by him. He dehumanizes them, insults the ever living shit out of them and makes them out to be savages and refuses to let any of them in. Words cannot describe how much I hate this disgusting coward. He can honestly choke on his own shit. Anyone who claim hes hard on Islam can go fuck themselves.

Melania looks like an alien wearing human skin.