Trump Travel Ban Lawful

[PyramidHead]

Affirmative societies will always reserve the right to designate certain classes of humans as detrimental and/or dispensable. This tendency is built into the fabric of civilization and only mitigated through policies that intervene to lessen its impact, not the other way around. In other words, it's not that we ever needed to provide special justification for this; once the original choice was made to abandon our basic obligations to each other as humans, everything that followed (culturally, economically, legislatively) was just varying shades of further injustice. Even those laws that improve the lives of citizens are situated within a larger movement, continuous from the start, of disrespect for the "other". A hallmark of the affirmative mindset is the sacramental worship of self-defense, and here we are seeing that play out on a national scale with the usual manifestations. In this light, the ruling makes perfect sense and it was only a matter of time before it happened under someone's watch, whatever their political affiliation.

 

[James Madison]

Ah, the Pythia in the temple approach, as you inform us of how another person, had they been a justice would’ve likely voted.

Oh, and it’s tragic to learn Justice Gorsuch is a phony, dressed in a way too early Halloween costume of a Supreme Court Justice, whose vote doesn’t count. Maybe you should write him and advise him and the other 8 justices they have an imposter among them.

And the word “authoritarian” is inapplicable here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Says you. I mean, essentially that's what your argument comes down to. I say he's invalid and you say no he's not. However, it's quite clear to a rational observer that Republicans deliberately shirked their duties in a partisan way so as to later obtain a justice that would be a Republican.

What do you mean by "invalid" and what features, facts, characteristics, pertaining to Gorsuch, meet and satisfy the meaning of "invalid?"

it's quite clear to a rational observer

Oh, fun, speculation of what a non-specific person, the unidentified "rational observer," is thinking. Not only are you the pythia in the temple but you are the magician, a conjurer of non-specific people, with a quality of being rational, and a mind reader as you inform us what these people believe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh, fun, speculation of what a non-specific person, the unidentified "rational observer," is thinking.

LOL. Your argument stoops so low to call something so obvious and rational, "speculation." Just Wow. Obviously, you'll never admit this so let me put back what I wrote for the reader to see:

However, it's quite clear to a rational observer that Republicans deliberately shirked their duties in a partisan way so as to later obtain a justice that would be a Republican.

So obvious. You don't own the facts and can't spin your way out of this by talking about ancient temples and irrelevant garbage.

WASHINGTON — The consequences of President Trump’s nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court — and the Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland in 2016 for that seat — became powerfully clear on Tuesday after the court’s conservative majority handed down major decisions to uphold Mr. Trump’s travel ban and in favor of abortion rights opponents.

Social conservatives cheered the court’s ruling that a California law requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide abortion information likely violates the First Amendment. Some conservatives also viewed the ruling — their latest win to advance their anti-abortion cause since Mr. Trump has taken office — as another opportunity to energize their base ahead of the November elections.

The travel ban decision drew more conflicting reactions from conservative voters and religious groups, with some criticizing it as anti-immigrant. Several groups supporting immigrants deemed the travel ban decision “shameful” and “hateful.” And many Democratic leaders denounced both rulings.

What many partisans on both sides agreed on, though, was that Justice Gorsuch — who voted with the 5-to-4 majorities in both cases — was an especially key figure in Tuesday’s decisions, because he wouldn’t have been on the court if Mr. Obama had been successful with the original nomination of Judge Garland.

“These 5-4 decisions remind us of the key role Justice Neil Gorsuch plays on the Supreme Court and why 81 percent of evangelicals voted for President Trump,” said Penny Nance, president of the Concerned Women for America, which filed an amicus brief in support of the pregnancy centers.

For liberal voters, the decisions underscored their worst fears about the Republican tactics in 2016 to block Judge Garland, a relatively progressive nominee, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative. The Republican majority in the Senate refused to convene a hearing or a vote on Judge Garland’s nomination, insisting that the next president should fill the seat — a controversial move that some legal scholars called unprecedented. After President Trump’s election that November, he nominated Judge Gorsuch for the Scalia seat and the Senate confirmed him, keeping the court in the hands of a conservative majority.

“As one after another 5-4 rulings of this SCOTUS on voting rights, abortion rights, the travel ban and more are announced, the full meaning of @SenMajLdr’s unconscionable, nearly yearlong blockade against the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland is manifest,” wrote David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, on Twitter Tuesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/travel-ban-donald-trump.html

 

[laughing dog]

What do you mean by "invalid" and what features, facts, characteristics, pertaining to Gorsuch, meet and satisfy the meaning of "invalid?"

The only reason Gorusch is on the court is because the Senate (led by Republicans) took the action of refusing to even consider a Presidential nominee based on the unprecedented rationale of an upcoming election in 8 months.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, just say "national security" and whatever follows is kosher. Working for the tariffs as well. This shows a particular weakness in a Democracy when all three sides are controlled by the same party.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS rules that Trump's 'temporary' travel ban is legal. People from Chad will not be happy.

Chad has already been removed from the list, so.... not sure why they'd be unhappy that they're not subject to the travel ban?

 

[dismal]

That makes this a 5-4 ruling.

That's the shocking part to me. We have 4 justices whose politics overrode their duty to apply the law in a relatively simple case.

 

[bilby]

Could a moderator please fix the typo in the thread title?

There is only one 'L' in 'awful'.

 

[Opoponax]

I guess the whole, "Intent behind the regulation" thing got short shrift here. That is, when the intent of a regulation is discriminatory towards X under the First Amendment, the standard of scrutiny is strict. Here, the intent was clearly discriminatory as can be easily found in statements by Trump and his underlings. The "Muslim ban" is what they called it.

On the other hand, the damn thing has been written and rewritten so many times due to its numerous failures at lower levels, that it probably comports with the powers of the Executive at this point. So I guess the question is how long the Court can hold someone's statement against them as to stated intent behind a regulation. The answer to that is that nobody knows. I personally have never heard of it, would've never considered it until now.

In one way, it's a victory for the system because the reg had to come into compliance with the law. To me, that's the positive. The negative is that Trump can now call this a win. And even though by now it's just a thing that any past POTUS would've done that would've never been noticed by anyone because it would've been done properly in the first place, it gives Trump something to crow about in perpetuity. Worse though, it emboldens the slimiest among us. They still think it's a ban them motherfuckin' mooslims who's collective goal is destroy the U.S. despite the fact that the very notion is absurd beyond even the dumbest reason.

 

[James Madison]

LOL. Your argument stoops so low to call something so obvious and rational, "speculation." Just Wow. Obviously, you'll never admit this so let me put back what I wrote for the reader to see:


So obvious. You don't own the facts and can't spin your way out of this by talking about ancient temples and irrelevant garbage.

WASHINGTON — The consequences of President Trump’s nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court — and the Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland in 2016 for that seat — became powerfully clear on Tuesday after the court’s conservative majority handed down major decisions to uphold Mr. Trump’s travel ban and in favor of abortion rights opponents.

Social conservatives cheered the court’s ruling that a California law requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide abortion information likely violates the First Amendment. Some conservatives also viewed the ruling — their latest win to advance their anti-abortion cause since Mr. Trump has taken office — as another opportunity to energize their base ahead of the November elections.

The travel ban decision drew more conflicting reactions from conservative voters and religious groups, with some criticizing it as anti-immigrant. Several groups supporting immigrants deemed the travel ban decision “shameful” and “hateful.” And many Democratic leaders denounced both rulings.

What many partisans on both sides agreed on, though, was that Justice Gorsuch — who voted with the 5-to-4 majorities in both cases — was an especially key figure in Tuesday’s decisions, because he wouldn’t have been on the court if Mr. Obama had been successful with the original nomination of Judge Garland.

“These 5-4 decisions remind us of the key role Justice Neil Gorsuch plays on the Supreme Court and why 81 percent of evangelicals voted for President Trump,” said Penny Nance, president of the Concerned Women for America, which filed an amicus brief in support of the pregnancy centers.

For liberal voters, the decisions underscored their worst fears about the Republican tactics in 2016 to block Judge Garland, a relatively progressive nominee, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative. The Republican majority in the Senate refused to convene a hearing or a vote on Judge Garland’s nomination, insisting that the next president should fill the seat — a controversial move that some legal scholars called unprecedented. After President Trump’s election that November, he nominated Judge Gorsuch for the Scalia seat and the Senate confirmed him, keeping the court in the hands of a conservative majority.

“As one after another 5-4 rulings of this SCOTUS on voting rights, abortion rights, the travel ban and more are announced, the full meaning of @SenMajLdr’s unconscionable, nearly yearlong blockade against the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland is manifest,” wrote David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, on Twitter Tuesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/travel-ban-donald-trump.html

Too bad that article doesn’t support your claim of:

it's quite clear to a rational observer that Republicans deliberately shirked their duties in a partisan way

The article doesn’t allege Republicans “deliberately shirked their duties.”

Neither has it been demonstrated the author of the article is a “rational observer.”

So, yep, you invoked the existence of an unknown entity. Rational observer? What are the features and characteristics of this rational observer? Are they a member of Mensa? An IQ over 130? (130 is classed as gifted). Is it the SAT scores? ACT scores? GPA, education level attained, class rank, and so forth? Not only do you invoke a fictional entity “rational observer,” your Candyland character isn’t conceptualized at all, poorly defined and therefore, incapable of being understood what is meant by “rational observer.”

And the garbage is your reasoning, self-declaring your assertions as “obvious” and “rational.” Well, your crap claims aren’t obvious, no matter how many times you declare it, and given your overall BS, the rationality is conspicuously nonexistent from your argument. Actually, it’s an insult to the word argument to characterize your mountain of manure as an argument.

Here’s the converse argument of your crap argument. “It’s like, ya know, um, like, obvious the Republicans didn’t shirk their duties...and any rational observer, just like pick one, pick a rational observer, it would be clear to the rational observer the Republicans didn’t shirk their duties.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I guess the whole, "Intent behind the regulation" thing got short shrift here. That is, when the intent of a regulation is discriminatory towards X under the First Amendment, the standard of scrutiny is strict. Here, the intent was clearly discriminatory as can be easily found in statements by Trump and his underlings. The "Muslim ban" is what they called it.

On the other hand, the damn thing has been written and rewritten so many times due to its numerous failures at lower levels, that it probably comports with the powers of the Executive at this point. So I guess the question is how long the Court can hold someone's statement against them as to stated intent behind a regulation. The answer to that is that nobody knows. I personally have never heard of it, would've never considered it until now.

In one way, it's a victory for the system because the reg had to come into compliance with the law. To me, that's the positive. The negative is that Trump can now call this a win. And even though by now it's just a thing that any past POTUS would've done that would've never been noticed by anyone because it would've been done properly in the first place, it gives Trump something to crow about in perpetuity. Worse though, it emboldens the slimiest among us. They still think it's a ban them motherfuckin' mooslims who's collective goal is destroy the U.S. despite the fact that the very notion is absurd beyond even the dumbest reason.

There’s a rationale, developed by the Court over more than a century of cases, explaining why the Court is deferential towards the other two branches in the area of the government exercising its power to control entry into the country by aliens. What would otherwise be impermissible government action in relation to people under the jurisdiction of the U.S. is not impermissible in relation to aliens outside of the country and not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. because of the deference the Court gives those two branches in deciding who may enter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess the whole, "Intent behind the regulation" thing got short shrift here. That is, when the intent of a regulation is discriminatory towards X under the First Amendment, the standard of scrutiny is strict. Here, the intent was clearly discriminatory as can be easily found in statements by Trump and his underlings. The "Muslim ban" is what they called it.

On the other hand, the damn thing has been written and rewritten so many times due to its numerous failures at lower levels, that it probably comports with the powers of the Executive at this point. So I guess the question is how long the Court can hold someone's statement against them as to stated intent behind a regulation. The answer to that is that nobody knows. I personally have never heard of it, would've never considered it until now.

In one way, it's a victory for the system because the reg had to come into compliance with the law. To me, that's the positive. The negative is that Trump can now call this a win. And even though by now it's just a thing that any past POTUS would've done that would've never been noticed by anyone because it would've been done properly in the first place, it gives Trump something to crow about in perpetuity. Worse though, it emboldens the slimiest among us. They still think it's a ban them motherfuckin' mooslims who's collective goal is destroy the U.S. despite the fact that the very notion is absurd beyond even the dumbest reason.

Yeah. While I would be inclined to say that anything resembling a Muslim ban was irrecoverably tainted by his statements I can see the other side of it, also. This isn't a clear-cut case even though his EO is an abomination.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Too bad that article doesn’t support your claim of:

it's quite clear to a rational observer that Republicans deliberately shirked their duties in a partisan way

The article doesn’t allege Republicans “deliberately shirked their duties.”

Neither has it been demonstrated the author of the article is a “rational observer.”

So, yep, you invoked the existence of an unknown entity. Rational observer? What are the features and characteristics of this rational observer? Are they a member of Mensa? An IQ over 130? (130 is classed as gifted). Is it the SAT scores? ACT scores? GPA, education level attained, class rank, and so forth? Not only do you invoke a fictional entity “rational observer,” your Candyland character isn’t conceptualized at all, poorly defined and therefore, incapable of being understood what is meant by “rational observer.”

And the garbage is your reasoning, self-declaring your assertions as “obvious” and “rational.” Well, your crap claims aren’t obvious, no matter how many times you declare it, and given your overall BS, the rationality is conspicuously nonexistent from your argument. Actually, it’s an insult to the word argument to characterize your mountain of manure as an argument.

Here’s the converse argument of your crap argument. “It’s like, ya know, um, like, obvious the Republicans didn’t shirk their duties...and any rational observer, just like pick one, pick a rational observer, it would be clear to the rational observer the Republicans didn’t shirk their duties.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Such nanny nanny booboo arguments.

The former President nominated a qualified judge.

The Republicans refused to confirm said judge.

They obviously did it for partisan reasons.

Anyone being rational about it will admit it.

 

[James Brown]

Why were the seven countries selected in the travel ban? What was the criteria used?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why were the seven countries selected in the travel ban? What was the criteria used?

A knife can kill a man or cut his steak.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why were the seven countries selected in the travel ban? What was the criteria used?

Muslim & his Flatulence has no business ties.