• Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban
    49 replies, posted
Why did they do that though? Was it in retaliation to american interventionism in the middle east? Do you live in a bubble of supreme, and absolute ignorance? It sure seems so.
The US has been at war in the Middle East for almost two decades now.
It actually kinda is.
Couldnt be the decades long war in their lands. Also just showed your hand how little you know, the terrorist that blew up the WTC would have been allowed to fly to the US with this ban because they came from Saudi Arabia.
We're already doing that to Mexicans, it's only a matter of time before it happens with the Muslim community as well.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1011662033006231552 https://twitter.com/arm_rest/status/1011667768691822592 https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112373/4f2f9b35-237c-482b-bf62-d2b3c7a28c35/1f914.png
Who gives a fuck about legal consistency or precedent Gorsuch has to repay his enablers somehow.
No it's a rather okay system, it's that our shithead of a president just cheated it.
If another justice dies the Dems need to completely prevent them forcing another Scalia clone in. Steal all the pens, punch McConnell in the face whatever they have to do.
As much as I want this to happen, any resistance Dems demonstrate will be met with scathing media backlash. Doesn’t matter if it’s a punch to the snout or hidden pens, the Reich will be up in arms, screaming and crying about the ‘obstructionist libcucks’ Something really needs to change.
Remember how Trump's travel ban was supposed to last 100 days so he could "Figure out what the hell is going on!" And how it's been a year and a half and he clearly hasn't made any attempt to figure out anything, despite him having 5 times the amount of time he needed? What's worse, considering his recent attitude toward immigration, he even limit the travel ban to 100 days? Or would he just make it indefinite?
There needs to be rules against Congress delaying a SC appointment indefinitely like they did. It's utter bullshit. I can see delaying it for a time to discuss and decide or even try to convince the president another choice is better. Delaying it until after the next election is outright wrong though.
i like how you sneaked cultural appropriation in there, like, what? that makes sense, how? the crazy SJW stereotype you fear so much could be here right now, they still wouldn't make that argument
We've already got worse stuff with separating children from their parents and putting them in internment camps. Also, those were internment camps, not concentration camps. Those were radically different things.
I'm not sure if y'all noticed but the supreme court formally rejected the Korematsu decision, which said the japanese internment were constitutional. Even as it upheld the travel ban, the court’s majority took a momentous step. It overruled the Korematsu case, officially reversing a wartime ruling that for decades has stood as an emblem of a morally repugnant response to fear. But Chief Justice Roberts said Tuesday’s decision was very different. “The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority,” he wrote. “But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.” “The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other president — the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular president in promulgating an otherwise valid proclamation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. Though they opened the door for Trump to do it on the basis of religion, just not race. Whoops!
They're literal synonyms.
Summarized quite nicely here: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/26/the-travel-ban-decision-in-one-non-snark The U.S. has nearly unlimited power to decide when foreigners are admitted to the country, even based on factors (such as ideology, religion, and likely race and sex) that would be unconstitutional as to people already in the country.
Well, due to the Supreme Court ruling, Trump can now bring this up as a precedent to whatever other travel ban he can propose, especially after Thomas' ruling that controlling immigration, be it legally or illegally, lies with the President, as per the Constitution. To enforce that, would be the domain of the Executive and Legislature instead of the Courts trying to hinder the Executive from carrying it all. And best of all with it, those don't even have to be temporary bans. It's wholly constitutional for a President to completely ban a nation from entering the United States of America if the President chooses to.
"Best of all"? Why? What makes this ban a positive?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.