Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban

[CoolieMan]

http://abc13.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-president-trumps-travel-ban/3656455/?sf192599811=1

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration.

The court may have signaled its eventual approval in December, when the justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

 

[IndySteel]

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration.

.

There it is. Trump should issue an executive order to build the wall.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Sotomayor is an idiot. Immigration isn't banned because they're Muslim, it's banned because they support terrorism. It's a fine line, but still.....
Libs are really going to lose their **** when Ginsberg dies and President Trump gets to replace her.

There it is. Trump should issue an executive order to build the wall.

Funding was already approved by Congress in 1996.

 

[Sarge]

Funding was already approved by Congress in 1996.

That money has long since been spent, and not on a wall.

 

[Sarge]

There will likely be riots after this one, considering the behavior over the last couple weeks.

 

[Supersteeler]

Who knew the Supreme Court was full of racists and xenophobes?

 

[IndySteel]

There will likely be riots after this one, considering the behavior over the last couple weeks.

The tears will be flowing all over fake news too.

 

[Roy92040]

This is just another example of political bias practiced by the liberal courts. If Obama had signed this order nothing would of been said. I hate that we have people trying to run this country by using the power of the court.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Presidents first responsibility is to protect the country. It's pretty simple.

 

[deljzc]

The argument the liberal justices went back to was not that his executive order was unconstitutional but rather Trump did the X.O. with malice and bias against a certain group.

I always thought that was a stretch and I don't like when courts/judges try to "read the minds" of people. I think it's a good ruling on sound legal principles and restricts the kind of "governance from the bench" that liberals love to get away with. When judges can start "guessing" what people are thinking rather than go by what is actually written in the law I don't really like it. I guess that's a pretty conservative/constitutional way of looking at things but then that's my legal leanings.

And I think instead of trying to put our judges into "Republican" and "Democrat" boxes, most of their decisions come down to either strict/literal interpretation of laws vs. "hidden meaning at the time" or evolving intent of laws.

 

[Spike]

bwahahahahahaha

Everything is breaking 5-4.

Trump you magnificent *******! Elections have consequences....LOL

MAGA!


WINNING!

Gorsuch!

4 more years!

4 more years!

4 more years!

 

[Tibs]

I always thought that was a stretch and I don't like when courts/judges try to "read the minds" of people. I think it's a good ruling on sound legal principles and restricts the kind of "governance from the bench" that liberals love to get away with. When judges can start "guessing" what people are thinking rather than go by what is actually written in the law I don't really like it. I guess that's a pretty conservative/constitutional way of looking at things but then that's my legal leanings.

Sorry but I had to laugh reading this. Surely you must be joking. Or, you've forgotten the countless times Trump point blank stated that this was a Muslim ban, a ban against Muslims. He himself stated that. There is no guesswork involved trying to figure out what he wanted to do here.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

From November 2017:

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Political Strategy
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...muslim-retweets-shouldnt-surprise-you/547031/

Whenever the president starts losing control politically, he looks to incite rage in his base.

 

[IndySteel]

Sorry but I had to laugh reading this. Surely you must be joking. Or, you've forgotten the countless times Trump point blank stated that this was a Muslim ban, a ban against Muslims. He himself stated that. There is no guesswork involved trying to figure out what he wanted to do here.



From November 2017:

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Political Strategy
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...muslim-retweets-shouldnt-surprise-you/547031/

Whenever the president starts losing control politically, he looks to incite rage in his base.

Quit reading fake news. There are 50 Muslim countries that are not part of the ban. It's 5 countries who are known to harbor terrorists and do not share intel with us about them.

 

[Spike]

Hilarious!

Lefties are attacking and blaming other Leftists! Blame Bernie! Blame Jill Stein, Blame Susan Sarandon!


"Every person who stayed home in 2016.... I blame you"

**** the arrogant ***** Purity voters and their bullshit conscience votes

If every Jill Stein voter in Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton... Trump would not be President, Gorsuch would not be on the Supreme Court...

Every protest voter, every non-voter.... this is on *YOU*


bwahahahahaha


b b but, "She got this"

hahahahahahaha

 

[IndySteel]

_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___build it!___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__

 

[Coach]

Sorry but I had to laugh reading this. Surely you must be joking. Or, you've forgotten the countless times Trump point blank stated that this was a Muslim ban, a ban against Muslims. He himself stated that. There is no guesswork involved trying to figure out what he wanted to do here.


From November 2017:

Trump’s Anti-Muslim Political Strategy
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...muslim-retweets-shouldnt-surprise-you/547031/

Whenever the president starts losing control politically, he looks to incite rage in his base.

Tibs,

Your news media source is leaving you uninformed. Not your fault. Read below:

Its not a ban on Muslim's. Some of the largest nations on the world with a Muslim population are not banned from travel.

The President Trump policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving "its identity-management and information sharing practices," President Trump said in a proclamation.

 

[Troglodyte]

Quit reading fake news. There are 50 Muslim countries that are not part of the ban. It's 5 countries who are known to harbor terrorists and do not share intel with us about them.

But the one that was home to 19 of the 21 9/11 hi-jackers gets left out.

 

[Sarge]

Tibs,

Your news media source is leaving you uninformed. Not your fault. Read below:

Its not a ban on Muslim's. Some of the largest nations on the world with a Muslim population are not banned from travel.

The Article he referenced is from November of last year.

 

[deljzc]

Tibs,

Is the executive branch ALLOWED to control immigration of not?

Only a liberal would argue how the President FEELS is the basis for whether a law is legal or not. Again, get your emotional sensitivities out of your *** and quit arguing everything on the basis of your ******* feelings.

You know who this ban had avarice for? Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen. That's it. And I'm fine with it. Have been from the very beginning.

Only a Liberal would argue a country = a race. There are things happening in these seven Muslim countries that is above and beyond "normal" Muslim countries. There is lack of government control, lack of solid identification, lack of cooperation when trying to verify identification, violence, civil war, high levels of hate for America/Americans.

In all but one country (Iran), the U.S. government has been waging war via Obama's Drone program. Let me make that clear again. We were at the time (and I think still are) dropping bombs on targets in those 6 countries. Many are in civil wars. Maybe that was reason alone (actually sounds like a pretty good reason to me) to stop all travel to/from those areas.

Really.... you have to get your head out of your *** soon around here. Your mindless babble with poor facts and condescending tone just keep painting you as more and more typical of why we have Trump in the first place. Shut up and let him govern and send your ******* vote from Hungary in two years. The whining of you and left is mind numbing, legally wrong, and worthless.

 

[BAS]

But the one that was home to 19 of the 21 9/11 hi-jackers gets left out.

Unfortunate but true. Right or wrong though, our government has had a 'friendly' relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades and their government isn't currently in a state of chaos. Meanwhile, we need to have a better screening process for people coming from those war-torn countries that are on the list. If it's a temporary ban (as was originally intended), then I have no problem with it so long as they have a plan in place to update our screening process for those people. Also remember -- it's for ALL people coming from those countries, not just the Muslim population.

 

[Sarge]

Unfortunate but true. Right or wrong though, our government has had a 'friendly' relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades and their government isn't currently in a state of chaos. Meanwhile, we need to have a better screening process for people coming from those war-torn countries that are on the list. If it's a temporary ban (as was originally intended), then I have no problem with it so long as they have a plan in place to update our screening process for those people. Also remember -- it's for ALL people coming from those countries, not just the Muslim population.

I don't think our screening process is a problem as much as those particular countries screening processes and information sharing is. The problem is that our government is unable to get reliable information from those governments in regards to people who want to enter our country. I don't think wanting background information on people from terrorist hotbeds that want to enter our country is too much to ask.

 

[Coach]

But the one that was home to 19 of the 21 9/11 hi-jackers gets left out.

Saudi Aribia is an ally and their new leader is for reform.

While 911 was a very bad day, what about the USA victims of illegal immigration crime? That has to number in the 100,000's of thousands. Its time for Trump to fix that situation, wouldn't you agree?

 

[hamster]

The "Muslim Ban" affected only 8% of the world's Muslim population. Please explain to me how it is a Muslim ban.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

It's pretty scary that this wa a 5-4 decision. It proves that the libs on the court have now completely abandoned the law and Constitution and are ruling purely on agenda.

The President clearly has this power. It's not even vague. The only way it could have been struck down would be if it did ban all muslims. That would have brought the first amendment into play. But they re-wrote the order so the basis was country of origin not religion. And the list of countires were not randomly chosen. They are countries identified by the UN as not having the infrastructure to complete a background check.

To rule against this ban is to willfully ignore the law and to play ignorant to the actual reason why the countries were chosen. muslim nations that have their **** together and can verify the identities of travelers from their country are NOT on the list. Only those being selectively ignorant will make the case that the basis is religion.

I expect ignorance from the media, but it's damn scary to come from the supreme court.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

That whip-smart American politician Keith Ellison has a studied take on the situation -

"Gorsuch really should not be on the Supreme Court," he said. "He may be there, but he's not there properly. You know, you can do that. You can jam in a Supreme Court by denying a sitting president their right to appoint the Supreme Court justice. That is exactly what happened, and Gorsuch has just done what his paymasters sent him there to do. It's a shame."

Can always count on Ellison for great quotes. What kind of fool votes for that clown?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ellison-explodes-travel-ban-decision-gorsuch-paymasters-sent/