Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

[TreeFrogTrader]

For all the constitutionalist chest tumping your side does, they sure are ok with going against the Constitution.

Perhaps you are confused. The case was decided with reference to the American Constitution.
See how it works?

You and Piezo continue to think American law is decided upon case law arising from the Saskatchewan Supreme Judicial Court, but that court's opinion is irrelevant as is your opinion.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

It's one thing to shoot down a nominee in a vote, it's a whole different thing altogether to skirt the vote using made up precedent to even have a hearing, knowing full well the vote may not go your way.

That will not happen with the nomination of the next justice or two, if that helps you any way. They will be nominated - the dems will do fierce theater- with tears and the whole bit- then they will be confirmed.

 

[Poindexter]

So you are NOT offended for your black sister who was called a monkey/animal?

You do have a black sister right? That was not a lie?

Were you abused as a child? Serious question.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Were you abused as a child? Serious question.

Nope.

 

[jem]

so the law itself is constitutional but some lefties including wacky supreme ct justices believe that it was really a pretext for a muslim ban.

If I read about the correct "ban" ... 87% of the world's muslims were not banned. Iran was impacted but the other 6 of top 7 largest muslim countries were not impacted. The ban targeted terrorist sponsoring countries.

Its seems to be this "muslim ban" idea is simply a pretext for hating trump Trump (and those who voted for him) and anything trump tries to do as president.

How do you reason with haters.... who refuse to let facts impact their rhetoric?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

so the law itself is constitutional but some lefties including wacky supreme ct justices believe that it was really a pretext for a muslim ban.

87% of the worlds muslims were not banned. Iran was impacted but the other 6 of top 7 largest muslim countries were not impacted. The ban targeted terrorist sponsoring countries.

Indeed, and Trump was not exactly targeting muslims when he banned Venezuela and North Korea along with the other countries. Don't think that was exactly his goal there.

 

[elderado]

so the law itself is constitutional but some lefties including wacky supreme ct justices believe that it was really a pretext for a muslim ban.

If I read about the correct "ban" ... 87% of the world's muslims were not banned. Iran was impacted but the other 6 of top 7 largest muslim countries were not impacted. The ban targeted terrorist sponsoring countries.

Its seems to be this "muslim ban" idea is simply a pretext for hating trump Trump (and those who voted for him) and anything trump tries to do as president.

How do you reason with haters.... who refuse to let facts impact their rhetoric?

Let's not forget that while identifying "countries" many of them were without functioning governments which could properly issue visas and passports.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Let's not forget that while identifying "countries" many of them were without functioning governments which could properly issue visas and passports.

They already had very developed vetting for this reason.

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/scotus-travel-ban-donald-trump/index.html

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Let's not forget that while identifying "countries" many of them were without functioning governments which could properly issue visas and passports.

Yep. and if you -for example- have someone who has documentation and government clearance from Syria, that right there is the first sign that they are trying to unload some terrorist on to you. Some of them do have functioning governments but - at the risk of sounding like Trump- they are not sending their best.

I was having this conversation with a lefty friend a long time back and he kept pointing out that some of the people from Syria and the like have been in the process of being vetted for over a year and they are not able to find any documention- SO HOW LONG ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO WAIT???? type of thing. Whereupon, I explained to him that there was no reason for them to wait any longer. Just tell them that their entry has been denied for lack of required proofs. Then, I explained that Americans and Americans alone decide who legally comes to this country and that if the required vetting comes up zip then the default is that they do not come, not that they have a right to enter by default. This was radical and unacceptable to him. Of course, he had already bought my coffee so it was okay if he disagreed.