Travel Ban #3 Upheld by USSC- Big Win for Trump!

[ChickenSandwich 9958]

I didn't post the article

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Did California fuck your mother or something? You spend a curious amount of time spouting bizarre theories that the high cost of living in CA is all the fault of illegal immigrants. Of course, you've never been able to support this theory, but keep it up!

and because they are on the front lines of the political dissent trying to force their harmful politics on the rest of the country.  They like to pretend these real crisis (homeless, housing, terrible public schools, mass exodus of Americans) etcdon't exist in their utopia and couldn't possibly be caused by their political decisions.  Easier to just blame Trump.

Edited June 26, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Ginsburg signing onto a reasonable observer argument in light of her comments on Trump is simply too delicious

[Steamboat1874 4321]

So this ban does not include Saudi Arabia......the country where, you know, the terrorists that attacked us actually came from. 

Make sense.

POTUS must have some monetary interest there or something. You Right Wingers are the most ignorant and gullible people in the fucking world.

[sidis 10016]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am guessing it's because they are completely different types of cases that have different analytical frameworks.

How do? How does the animus of the actor in one differ from that of the other? Why shouldn’t trump’s words have mattered like the commisioners’ did? Try to explain it without talking about some incredibly irrelevant non sequitur...

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

So this ban does not include Saudi Arabia......the country where, you know, the terrorists that attacked us actually came from. 

Make sense.

POTUS must have some monetary interest there or something. You Right Wingers are the most ignorant and gullible people in the fucking world.

That ain't new.  We fought 2 wars in countries that aren't Saudi Arabia for something that Saudis did.  And the Saudis are still over there drumming up extremism in their teeming masses.  When the next crop gets good and hateful, we'll blame it on whatever country they go to rather than where they learned it.

Edited June 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

High five!

Edited June 26, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

How do? How does the animus of the actor in one differ from that of the other? Why shouldn’t trump’s words have mattered like the commisioners’ did? Try to explain it without talking about some incredibly irrelevant non sequitur...

 I tried to post this earlier when you initially asked a question but evidently it didn’t go through. I think the animus claim in the cake case is clearer because she directly said on the record that his religious beliefs were terrible etc.,  during the process of deciding the outcome where those beliefs were considered relevant.

 

 In this one we are asked to draw a separate inference that trumps bigotry is actually what inspired this order which is facially neutral, PLUS  it applies to only 8% of Muslims PLUS some Muslim countries were initially on the naughty list but ultimately left off.

  If either of two things would have been different in this case I think you would’ve gotten a different result. If Trump  would have said I’m putting *this* order in because I want a Muslim ban, or if it applied to way more than 8% of Muslims, I bet the court would’ve found it illegal. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 I tried to post this earlier when you initially asked a question but evidently it didn’t go through. I think the animus claim in the cake case is clearer because she directly said on the record that his religious beliefs were terrible etc.,  during the process of deciding the outcome where those beliefs were considered relevant.

 

 In this one we are asked to draw a separate inference that trumps bigotry is actually what inspired this order which is facially neutral, PLUS  it applies to only 8% of Muslims PLUS some Muslim countries were initially on the naughty list but ultimately left off.

  If either of two things would have been different in this case I think you would’ve gotten a different result. If Trump  would have said I’m putting *this* order in because I want a Muslim ban, or if it applied to way more than 8% of Muslims, I bet the court would’ve found it illegal. 

One was also campaign rhetoric.  And the other was said in a hearing deciding the issue.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

 I did get a bit of a chuckle out of the spin that they put on Giuliani‘s comments. They included in the discussion in there of “the president called me up and told me how to make it legal,” but they added in an extra part saying that instead of focusing on religion Guiliani decided to focus on threats,  as though the change of intent was genuine and not entirely pretext 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The “vetting system” and reason for the ban is dependent on what the other countries do, not the US’s own vetting efforts. Chad has been removed from the list because it improved its information gathering work. So until the other countries have met the minimum standards, the ban can stay in place.

[Fozzz 152]

I think the "8% of Muslims" argument is pretty silly.  The list is mostly made up of relatively larger countries with a very high % Muslim population where it was politically expedient to act against them (we obviously aren't going to fuck with our friends the KSA over some virtue signaling nonsense like this) plus some other boogeymen like the DPRK and Venezuela.  I don't see how adding a country like India (lol) would have made the animus argument stronger when the Muslim population % is relatively low there compared to the Muslim countries on the list.  

Edited June 26, 2018 by Fozzz

[Foosters 18278]

41 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I didn't post the article

and because they are on the front lines of the political dissent trying to force their harmful politics on the rest of the country.  They like to pretend these real crisis (homeless, housing, terrible public schools, mass exodus of Americans) etcdon't exist in their utopia and couldn't possibly be caused by their political decisions.  Easier to just blame Trump.

Yet again, you're wrong. Over a 10 year period, they lost one million residents to migration. They actually have a net gain in high earners and college grads. The poor are moving bc the cost of housing is high.  

[Pods 7637]

13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 I did get a bit of a chuckle out of the spin that they put on Giuliani‘s comments. They included in the discussion in there of “the president called me up and told me how to make it legal,” but they added in an extra part saying that instead of focusing on religion Guiliani decided to focus on threats,  as though the change of intent was genuine and not entirely pretext 

It's a really sad situation when Rudy Guliani is the "reasonable" person in the room. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Pods

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think the "8% of Muslims" argument is pretty silly.  The list is mostly made up of relatively larger countries with a very high % Muslim population where it was politically expedient to act against them (we obviously aren't going to fuck with our friends the KSA over some virtue signaling nonsense like this) plus some other boogeymen like the DPRK and Venezuela.  I don't see how adding a country like India (lol) would have made the animus argument stronger when the Muslim population % is relatively low there compared to the Muslim countries on the list.  

I think the ban was the combination of his concepts of “Muslim ban” plus “shithole country”.  After the fact was able to leverage the fact that there are “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims” to say it isn’t a Muslim ban.  

I have a feeling this is a branding problem.  Not really a Muslim Ban at the end of the day.  If there was some concise way to say what it really was instead of a Muslim ban, then it might be illegal. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the ban was the combination of his concepts of “Muslim ban” plus “shithole country”.  After the fact was able to leverage the fact that there are “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims” to say it isn’t a Muslim ban.  

I have a feeling this is a branding problem.  Not really a Muslim Ban at the end of the day.  If there was some concise way to say what it really was instead of a Muslim ban, then it might be illegal. 

So it seems to me to be a big political win for Trump.  He knows his people want to ban Muslims.  So he makes something he can point at to his supporters, but obliquely enough to have plausible deniability with the Courts to have it found legal.   Threaded the needle.

[Art Vandelay 1712]

11 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the ban was the combination of his concepts of “Muslim ban” plus “shithole country”.  After the fact was able to leverage the fact that there are “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims” to say it isn’t a Muslim ban.  

I have a feeling this is a branding problem.  Not really a Muslim Ban at the end of the day.  If there was some concise way to say what it really was instead of a Muslim ban, then it might be illegal. 

I could be way off base here but I thought the original ban was based on a list of terrorist nations compiled by the Obama administration (not sure of the criteria). Am I remembering wrong?

[Pancho 46300]

Haven't been able to keep up due to work stuff, but what is going on here in this tween surly legal scholars? 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

That's a hell of an interpretation. JFC Twitter is trash.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

David is trying to tell us he’s a moron.  Just because X is illegal does not mean everything that isn’t X is legal. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[EuroHorn 3295]

Edited June 26, 2018 by EuroHorn

[Pods 7637]

Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Roberts is repudiating the Korematsu decision, saying the president never had the power to detain citizens solely on the basis of race. He is NOT saying that the president can detain citizens for any and all other reasons than race. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Pods

[lemonlime 5503]

nm

Edited June 26, 2018 by lemonlime

[wildcat09 29579]

Just now, Pods said:

Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Robert is repudiating the Korematsu decision and saying the president never had the power to detain citizens solely on the basis of race. He is NOT saying that the president can detain citizens for any and all other reasons than race. 

He's also blatantly ignoring the text of the executive order that the ruling in Korematsu was based on, which was [checks notes] more facially neutral than the order that he upheld today.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

10 minutes ago, Pods said:

Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Roberts is repudiating the Korematsu decision, saying the president never had the power to detain citizens solely on the basis of race. He is NOT saying that the president can detain citizens for any and all other reasons than race. 

Statements like that isn't going to get you "likes" on Twitter.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's also blatantly ignoring the text of the executive order that the ruling in Korematsu was based on, which was [checks notes] more facially neutral than the order that he upheld today.

A president has quite a bit more authority to turn away foreign travelers than he does to intern US citizens into concentration camps.

[Pancho 46300]

Based on Trump and Republicans/Conservatives--

Middle Eastern folks/arabs?  Check

Latinos/Mexicans?  Check

Blacks?  Well, looks like we are up next.  So what's going to happen?  Back to the cotton fields in Mississippi or should I be expecting a house job? 

[Fozzz 152]

So the government argued that the availability of waivers militated against animus, but in fact, they aren't actually granting waivers?  

Quote

The government made much of the waiver scheme while defending the ban. The Justice Department argued that the policy is not a true ban because every applicant gets individualized consideration for a waiver. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April, the government’s top lawyer asserted that several hundred waivers have been “cleared” for individuals from the banned countries. Outside the courtroom, though, that assertion has never been substantiated.

The government has provided no proof that many, if not most, of the 800 individuals the government states have been “cleared” for a waiver have actually been granted visas or been able to come to the United States. (Even if each person cleared for a waiver were to be granted a visa, that would still, according to a recent estimate, amount to no more than 1.5 percent of all visa applicants from the banned countries.)

Among the people we’ve tried to help whose lives have been upended by the ban are an elderly mother living alone in war-torn Syria while her son, a U.S. citizen who runs a small business in Virginia, anxiously awaits word on whether she can rejoin him; a young man in Iran separated from his entire family, which lives in the United States; a couple stuck in Malaysia because the husband is Yemeni and his U.S.-citizen wife does not want to be separated from him while he is banned from entering the United States; and an 80-year-old Iranian man who died while trying to rejoin his U.S.-citizen daughter in the United States after his son died of brain cancer.

All these individuals, and many more, have sought waivers to allow them to come to the United States. But to date, none have received such a waiver, and all remain banned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/26/the-u-s-says-it-grants-waivers-for-trumps-travel-ban-our-clients-cant-get-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89e8245c72b7

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

just clicked on that idiot David Cay Johnston's twitter.  he claims he won a Pulitzer!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

just clicked on that idiot David Cay Johnston's twitter.  he claims he won a Pulitzer!

Didn't he write a book on Trump?  Like way before he became President. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Lagunamadre 1975]

14 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

Based on Trump and Republicans/Conservatives--

Middle Eastern folks/arabs?  Check

Latinos/Mexicans?  Check

Blacks?  Well, looks like we are up next.  So what's going to happen?  Back to the cotton fields in Mississippi or should I be expecting a house job? 

You might have to join the Zagiew, like Diamond and Silk. 

[ChickenSandwich 9958]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Yet again, you're wrong. Over a 10 year period, they lost one million residents to migration. They actually have a net gain in high earners and college grads. The poor are moving bc the cost of housing is high.  

I thought you cared about the poor? Only when it serves your purpose.

Got to get rid of all of those "deplorables" - you know, poor and middle class Americans.

  Who digs the ditches?  Who buses the tables?  Willfully obtuse.

So the policies are completely unsustainable for the lower and middle class requiring an illegal labor force?  Then you bitch and say no "American" would take those jobs.  So funny it's sad.  More homeless and more rich....get rid of the rest?

Those same rich folks don't really care about health care, public schools or affordable housing as those issues will never be a reality for them or their children.

Edited June 26, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I sense a little bit of snark in this thread.

Yes, it's technically a victory, but the left forced the administration to rewrite the ban twice, and there are loads of exemptions that weren't included in the first go round.

This isn't the original travel ban. This has been in effect since December and fails to do what the administration wanted.

 

This.  The travel ban that passed was a shell of it's former self.  It's a slippery slope trying to judge someone's intent.  The judges needed to rule on what was in front of them, in black and white.  I don't have a huge problem with what passed and am hardly surprised.  There's plenty to be outraged by, this is pretty far down the list. 

[sidis 10016]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 I tried to post this earlier when you initially asked a question but evidently it didn’t go through. I think the animus claim in the cake case is clearer because she directly said on the record that his religious beliefs were terrible etc.,  during the process of deciding the outcome where those beliefs were considered relevant.

 

 In this one we are asked to draw a separate inference that trumps bigotry is actually what inspired this order which is facially neutral, PLUS  it applies to only 8% of Muslims PLUS some Muslim countries were initially on the naughty list but ultimately left off. 

  If either of two things would have been different in this case I think you would’ve gotten a different result. If Trump  would have said I’m putting *this* order in because I want a Muslim ban, or if it applied to way more than 8% of Muslims, I bet the court would’ve found it illegal.  

i think the dissent's position regarding any reasoned reading of the context surrounding the ban is more persuasive than the required inference cop-out.

[Gil Bang 26235]

how were the donuts?

Where’s he been?

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I didn't post the article

and because they are on the front lines of the political dissent trying to force their harmful politics on the rest of the country.  They like to pretend these real crisis (homeless, housing, terrible public schools, mass exodus of Americans) etcdon't exist in their utopia and couldn't possibly be caused by their political decisions.  Easier to just blame Trump.

Of course the homeless population is larger and a bigger problem in CA vs, say, Iowa, Nebraska etc.  Is it because Bumblefuck, America has some great policy that works?  Or is it because when you're fucking homeless all it takes is a $12 megabus ticket to 'move'.  Shockingly they choose to live in CA. 

 

[Foosters 18278]

I thought you cared about the poor? Only when it serves your purpose.
Got to get rid of all of those "deplorables" - you know, poor and middle class Americans.
  Who digs the ditches?  Who buses the tables?  Willfully obtuse.
So the policies are completely unsustainable for the lower and middle class requiring an illegal labor force?  Then you bitch and say no "American" would take those jobs.  So funny it's sad.  More homeless and more rich....get rid of the rest?
Those same rich folks don't really care about health care, public schools or affordable housing as those issues will never be a reality for them or their children.

Lol what?

I never said it was a good thing that the poor cannot afford California. Just showing that you were either lying or mistaken.

[SpiralOut 1964]

4 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

TRESPASSERS!!!

Will be shot.  Survivors will be shot again.  /slorch

[Mo Horn 8937]

I really do live my life everyday with the adage "worth of all persons" as my guide. I try to listen to different viewpoints and respect those who i disagree with. But when persons like McConnell after today's ruling post pictures like this, knowing how he manipulated the system to get a conservative on the court, it really challenges me. I struggle to find any worth in someone who rubs his "victory" in the face of everyone who disagrees. I wished I believed in hell so I could have some hope that he might have eternal suffering. 

[David Dennison 19534]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I really do live my life everyday with the adage "worth of all persons" as my guide. I try to listen to different viewpoints and respect those who i disagree with. But when persons like McConnell after today's ruling post pictures like this, knowing how he manipulated the system to get a conservative on the court, it really challenges me. I struggle to find any worth in someone who rubs his "victory" in the face of everyone who disagrees. I wished I believed in hell so I could have some hope that he might have eternal suffering. 

The Democrats will have their revenge. Politics is always like that. Everything these people are doing is temporary. 

[Hank Kingsley 21776]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats will have their revenge. Politics is always like that. Everything these people are doing is temporary. 

I want the American People, not the fucking Democratic Party, to get their revenge on these assholes. Everything going on right now transcends our stupid 2 party political system.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats will have their revenge. Politics is always like that. Everything these people are doing is temporary. 

America is in uncharted waters now and regardless of any perceived victory, this country is in for some serious shit.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I want the American People, not the fucking Democratic Party, to get their revenge on these assholes. Everything going on right now transcends our stupid 2 party political system.

This is an extreme outlook (assuming things go really south down the road), the American people may end up needing their own Arab Spring to take the power back.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 21776]

Just getting tired of reading about how all of this horrible GOP shit will end up being “good for the Democrats”.  

Removing Trumpism from power is the first goal. The second is holding both parties fully responsible for their action/inaction.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[F250 29199]

5 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

So this ban does not include Saudi Arabia......the country where, you know, the terrorists that attacked us actually came from. 

Make sense.

POTUS must have some monetary interest there or something. You Right Wingers are the most ignorant and gullible people in the fucking world.

To be fair, the Saudis always get a pass. That's SOP for the United States.

 

[tantric superman 4668]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

To be fair, the Saudis always get a pass. That's SOP for the United States.

 

Let's ask Johnny Sack.  I'll bet the Saudi's are good with they way they vette.

[jimmyjazz 47152]

Is this real?  I don't speak Twitter.

[Hank Kingsley 21776]

Look at the date.