1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

Supreme Court Rules on Travel Ban

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Antares, Jun 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Antares

    Antares The Famous LTD Doggie

    The US Supreme Court ruled today that the President of the United States has the authority to control entry into the US.

    By a vote of 9-0 they have ruled that the Travel Ban is legal.
     
    i hrt strs likes this.
  2. i hrt strs

    i hrt strs Trusted.Member

    Does that mean Judges must rule on the merits of a law instead of what a person says when they are campaigning for office?

    i h s
     
  3. Antares

    Antares The Famous LTD Doggie

    They said that Trumps comments while running for office have no bearing on the case. Those comments as a non-government official are irrelevant to the merits of the case.
     
  4. i hrt strs

    i hrt strs Trusted.Member

    The lower (Liberal) courts who ruled against the Executive Order were basing their opinions on what Trump said while campaigning, not what was written in the EO. I hope, seeing as the ruling was 9-0 in favor of Trump, that the non-sense about what someone says while on the campaign trail will no longer come into consideration when judging whether a bill is Constitutional or not. But I know better.

    i h s
     
    Antares likes this.
  5. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    It wasn't a ruling. What the Supreme Court did was invalidate the injunction that the lower courts imposed, saying that the injunctions had no merit. The court said that they would make the actually ruling later this year, when they're back in session.
     
  6. VCarter216

    VCarter216 Trusted Member

    This is absolutely not a win for Trump. Since this isn't going to excite Trump's base, the ruling will be ignored. Because this was always about feeding red meat to the base and never about actually increasing the security of Americans.
     
  7. Insp Gadget

    Insp Gadget Trusted.Member

    The security of Americans sounds pretty tasty to me - have the looney left gone full Vegan now ?
     
  8. Antares

    Antares The Famous LTD Doggie

    Looney left is the name for it. Sorry folks this place is not, "come one come all, free parking and the American Taxpayer will pay the bill and you can like a king on their dime." Our history has shown that there have been times in the past when the US border was totally closed to all. It our right; it our country and we can let in who we please and kick out who we please. Its not the world's open house.
     
    Lustingmom1 and Neophyte like this.
  9. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    It was not a ruling, as Neophyte said. They reversed the injunction only. They did NOT, I repeat, NOT uphold the law. And the reversal said it is not absolute. People with immediate family are exempt, people who teach, work or own a business here. They will fully rule in the Fall. The problem is, now that the "ban" is in effect, and it is July right now, a hearing in October has issues based on previous statements. To the tune of "This is only temporary. We need 90 days to re-evaluate the system." Well? Now it is in effect for all intents and purposes. And wont be ruled on for 90 days. So, it may be time to stop TWEETING at Joe and Mika and get on that. Unless it was never meant to be temporary.

    That said. My only issue with this really is........... 13 people have carried out successful attacks on US soil. Well 15 but lets concentrate on the 13 for now. They were from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE. None are on the list. Neither is Chechnya. Which is the other 2. So a total of all of the successful attacks came from none of the nations on the list. My issue is not who is on it. It is who is not. And how DJT has businesses in Saudi and UAE. Where 11 of the 15 are from.
     
  10. winchester73

    winchester73 Trusted.Member

    I believe that this comment very succinctly points out the silliness of using written law to mechanically cripple murderous intent. The popular perception of the ban appears to be an offering of solutions to American national security AND a step to resist neo-colonialization by foreign nations of dislike. As for the law, our dipshit president has made a successful career out of manipulating law to serve his financial agendas. It appears that the folks on "the list" have just lost their first round of "American Executive Intern". After the commercials are over in October, we'll see A) Which countries are still on the list; B) Which countries are added to the list; C) If Trump The Chump is still trump.

    Of course, there's that pesky thing about one man deciding who enters or leaves the country; I can't quite put my finger on where I heard that before. Something to do with Munich -
     
    pussycat likes this.
  11. Antares

    Antares The Famous LTD Doggie

    If you read back through history you will see that the President has the authority to close the border and anytime. Its been done a couple times before in the 19th century.
     
  12. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    What do you find objectionable about this executive order?
     
    Lustingmom1 likes this.
  13. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I find it objectionable that the nations who sent us 9/11 terrorists are not on it. And it appears that could be because Trump does business in Saudi and UAE. I dont think it is unneeded per se. Just that it is poorly executed. My only real issue with Trump in general is he does not seem to have adjusted, going on 1/2 of a year later to the concept he is NOT the CEO.

    That said. I do like that Trump realized he can craft legislation by courting a FEW Dems. Because the lack of votes are not just moderates. You will not get all Rs on this one. Because if you give in to Paul and Cruz. You will lose more moderates. Cruz and Paul want even more cuts.
     
    Antares likes this.
  14. Antares

    Antares The Famous LTD Doggie


    Better Trump than a corrupt Hildabeast who would stab you in the back the moment it would benefit her to do so. Moral: You don't want her as a friend for if you do, you have no friend. She is all about herself and the hell with you if it serves her purposes. What it comes right down to it is not democrat ideas (some are good) but Hillary herself who is totally bad.
     
  15. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah. So that had nothing to do with anything that is quoted there. Nothing to do with the point that the 9/11 terrorist nations are not on the list. The only nations who sent us successful terrorists. Lets keep on topic Antares. No one mention HRC anywhere.
     
  16. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I admit that I changed the executive order quoted above. This is what it originally said.
    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...uspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.