Breaking news
5-4 ruling
5-4 ruling
Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
You guys may hate Mitch McConnell but his refusal to hold a vote on Merrill Garland is probably one of the most politically consequential happenings of my lifetime.
I actually agree with this decision. The “ban” was neutral on its face and taking past statements into account didn’t seem relevant, in this case.
However, the gerrymandering and abortion decisions that came out today are both politically motivated and not in line with the constitution.
I actually agree with this decision. The “ban” was neutral on its face and taking past statements into account didn’t seem relevant, in this case.
However, the gerrymandering and abortion decisions that came out today are both politically motivated and not in line with the constitution.
You're right about that, but refusing to let Obama appoint a Supreme Court justice on the way out the door is about the least we expect of our leaders.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,” quoting from an earlier case, and that the president has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes doing so is in the nation’s interests.
President Trump’s policy is permitted by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, because Presidential Proclamation 9645 provides a religion-neutral explanation for the policy that is facially legitimate, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that the policy advanced an impermissible religious purpose.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-upholds-travel-ban-in-trump-v-hawaii-ruling/
Can we now get on with impeaching those district court and Ninth Circuit judges who thought they were entitled to run immigration policy? They are either totally corrupt or unable to grasp basic constitutional concepts. Either is grounds to remove them.
President Trump’s policy is permitted by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, because Presidential Proclamation 9645 provides a religion-neutral explanation for the policy that is facially legitimate, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that the policy advanced an impermissible religious purpose.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-upholds-travel-ban-in-trump-v-hawaii-ruling/
Can we now get on with impeaching those district court and Ninth Circuit judges who thought they were entitled to run immigration policy? They are either totally corrupt or unable to grasp basic constitutional concepts. Either is grounds to remove them.
Eh, that was unprecedented. McConnell was concerned about the political shift the loss of Scalia’s seat would have caused exclusively.
Just because a President nominates someone, that person still must pass Senate approval. Regardless Garland would not have had the votes in an election year. McConnell just spared the country the bitter press war that would have resulted and took one for the team, one of the few things he's gotten right.
As a result, it became part of the Presidential debate, Winner, winner, SCOTUS dinner.
As a result, it became part of the Presidential debate, Winner, winner, SCOTUS dinner.
Unprecendented?
Ahhh. So what?
McConnell followed the Biden Rule so he was acting in a bipartisan manner (little joke there).
Having said that, I do nevertheless think that it was trashy on the part of the republicans to not hold a quick voice vote and then passing a resolution thanking Garland for presenting his credentials for consideration. A bit of courtesy and respect was in order.
For all the constitutionalist chest tumping your side does, they sure are ok with going against the Constitution.