SC upholds Travel Ban 5-4

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[row_33]

i am grateful that Obama's policy is getting continued and upheld

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

How long before a Hawaiian judge declares "nut uh"? 

5-4? Methinks some members of the Supremes need to reread a few documents.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

How long before a Hawaiian judge declares "nut uh"? 

5-4? Methinks some members of the Supremes need to reread a few documents.

 

usually it stops at the SCOTUS level for awhile

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

usually it stops at the SCOTUS level for awhile

 

We need a sarcasm tag in this forum. ?

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

We need a sarcasm tag in this forum. ?

 

... ?

 

 

your view stated matches about 99% of the drive-by media and lots of people who think they are political

 

 

 

so I don't know if you were part of the majority.

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This was never in question.

 

 

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Because it's not about the ban, it's about the power of the Executive to make immigration policy, which historically has been completely unfettered.

 

That it's a 5-4 decision is sad.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

I agree with this decision wholeheartedly.

 

Pats* fans from other countries should be banned from entering the U.S.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Because it's not about the ban, it's about the power of the Executive to make immigration policy, which historically has been completely unfettered.

 

That it's a 5-4 decision is sad.

 

You aren't kidding.

 

When I get some time later on today I'm looking forward to reading any dissenting opinions.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

... ?

 

 

your view stated matches about 99% of the drive-by media and lots of people who think they are political

 

 

 

so I don't know if you were part of the majority.

I found it ridiculous that a Hawaiian judge (or any single judge) could put a stop to a long-held national security concern overseen by the executive branch. And further, to make it a nationwide injunction.

The decision being 5-4 is cringeworthy. I expected 7-2 (RBG and Sotomayer because they are driven by ideology and not the law).  Hence, my comment that some of the Supremes need to reread some past legal documents.

So, a /sarc tag would have made all that clear in my first post.

 

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I found it ridiculous that a Hawaiian judge (or any single judge) could put a stop to a long-held national security concern overseen by the executive branch. And further, to make it a nationwide injunction.

The decision being 5-4 is cringeworthy. I expected 7-2 (RBG and Sotomayer because they are driven by ideology and not the law).  Hence, my comment that some of the Supremes need to reread some past legal documents.

So, a /sarc tag would have made all that clear in my first post.

 

 

agreed on all points!!!

 

put a "..." on the end of statements goodness knows could go any way

 

the liberal view is beyond comic now....

 

 

[Albwan]

27 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

UH-OH ...this weeks cnns scream fest has arrived...

TRUMP AND HIS VOTERS  ARE BIGOT DEMONS PERSECUTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Deranged Rhino]

This ruling comes tomorrow. Word is Alito wrote the decision, which means it'll be another win (arguably bigger win) for the administration: 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-janus-afscme-supreme-court-ruling-20180625-story.html

 

This hits the DNC's pocketbook. 

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You aren't kidding.

 

When I get some time later on today I'm looking forward to reading any dissenting opinions.

 

Sotomayor wrote the dissent, so it should be spectacularly histrionic.

 

Already caught some quotes from it, it's basically what you'd expect: "The court failed to consider that Trump is a great big racist meanie!"

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Sotomayor wrote the dissent, so it should be spectacularly histrionic.

 

Already caught some quotes from it, it's basically what you'd expect: "The court failed to consider that Trump is a great big racist meanie!"

 

Deion Sanders dousing Tim McCarver with ice water is a mature and okay thing to do from now on....

 

 

[3rdnlng]

43 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I found it ridiculous that a Hawaiian judge (or any single judge) could put a stop to a long-held national security concern overseen by the executive branch. And further, to make it a nationwide injunction.

The decision being 5-4 is cringeworthy. I expected 7-2 (RBG and Sotomayer because they are driven by ideology and not the law).  Hence, my comment that some of the Supremes need to reread some past legal documents.

So, a /sarc tag would have made all that clear in my first post.

 

Try this for "tongue in cheek": (-

46 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You aren't kidding.

 

When I get some time later on today I'm looking forward to reading any dissenting opinions.

Have fun.

 

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

[Tiberius]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This ruling comes tomorrow. Word is Alito wrote the decision, which means it'll be another win (arguably bigger win) for the administration: 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-janus-afscme-supreme-court-ruling-20180625-story.html

 

This hits the DNC's pocketbook. 

But are the polis or multis happy with this?? Now you are openly bashing Dems, showing true colors 

[B-Man]

From the Roberts opinion:

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous requirements for admission. The Act also vests the Presi- dent with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). Relying on that delegation, the President concluded that it was necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of countries that do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination, or that otherwise present national security risks....

By its plain language, §1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings—following a worldwide, multi-agency review—that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. And plaintiffs’ attempts to identify a conflict with other provisions in the INA, and their appeal to the statute’s purposes and legislative history, fail to overcome the clear statutory language....

Moreover, plaintiffs’ request for a searching inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s justifications is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President in this sphere....

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]