SC allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban, will consider case in Fall

[Noxx79]

I never said it was boiling... that's kind of the point of the metaphor. It's too late when it is.

Religion isn't incidental. They have their own particular beliefs that produce different behaviors. Like american culture has its own beliefs that produce certain behaviors from its citizens - rampant gun culture, soldier-worship, etc... Their culture is not incidental. The fact that the doctrine of jihad is more closely linked to the religion is cause for concern. Also the fact that multicultural/racial/ethnic societies only do well with a great amount of success behind them should be cause for concern. We can't ignore the trend of socioeconomic downturn enabling scapegoating against ethnicities, whether they're white, black, middle eastern, etc. It's a system that just isn't as sustainable as homogeneity.

Again - the water has some bubbles here and there. It's not boiling (or else we'd be dead or enslaved or under a new cultural hegemony) but the dial is turned too high at the moment. It'll boil if we keep going like this.

Except the dial you're turning is connected to a stove on the other side of the country. You're suggesting that we turn all the stoves off. That is stupid and cowardly.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said it was boiling... that's kind of the point of the metaphor. It's too late when it is.

Religion isn't incidental. They have their own particular beliefs that produce different behaviors. Like american culture has its own beliefs that produce certain behaviors from its citizens - rampant gun culture, soldier-worship, etc... Their culture is not incidental. The fact that the doctrine of jihad is more closely linked to the religion is cause for concern. Also the fact that multicultural/racial/ethnic societies only do well with a great amount of success behind them should be cause for concern. We can't ignore the trend of socioeconomic downturn enabling scapegoating against ethnicities, whether they're white, black, middle eastern, etc. It's a system that just isn't as sustainable as homogeneity.

Again - the water has some bubbles here and there. It's not boiling (or else we'd be dead or enslaved or under a new cultural hegemony) but the dial is turned too high at the moment. It'll boil if we keep going like this.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, the american house is gigantic with loads of resources. It really doesn't need its doors to be open much longer, when automation ramps up.

Your house can sustain you for a while, why do you leave it?

[Deleted]

Actually, no congress cannot make it racist if they wanted to. They would have to make an amendment to the constitution to make it past the Supreme Court.

And no, you CANNOT stop people from coming into this country based on their religion. Based on the 1st and 14th amendments as religion is a protected class.

Immigration Act of 1924:

"Asian Exclusion Act" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Chinese Exclusion Act.

President Coolidge signs the immigration act on the White House South Lawn along with appropriation bills for the Veterans Bureau. John J. Pershing is on the President's right.
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews.[1][2][3] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians

But thank god they passed the 14th amendment in 1868 to stop that.

[Orbitus]

Immigration Act of 1924:


But thank god they passed the 14th amendment in 1868 to stop that.

Just because no one brought a court case against it at the time, doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional. If you did that now, it will be struck down faster than anything.

[Rennadrel]

All 3 of which were vetted by the previous administration and deemed to be not as threatening domestically as the countries on the list.

Which is ironic, to say the least. I wouldn't trust Obama's administration to know where terrorists are likely to come from any more than Trump's, truth be told. Everyone has an agenda in politics, even the president.

[Orbitus]

By the same shifty liberal activist judges who just got rest by the scotus?

Sorry, just because they are ruling the way they did, doesn't mean they are all liberal activist judges. Some of them were put in by George W. Bush.

[Mafic]

As I correctly predicted that the SCOTUS would take the case in October - and that whatever the 9th and 4th ruled was of no consequence (it wasn't it - in fact, 3 SCOTUS judges wanted the ban instituted exactly how the EO was written and they voted 9-0 to stay the lower courts injunctions) - I want you to be aware of something...

You need 2/3 of the States to be able to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. As it stands right now, the Republicans only need ONE MORE STATE and they will have a 2/3's majority. Once they have the majority they will institute - and pass - a clarification to the 14th amendment stating that unless you are born to at least ONE U.S. citizen, then you are NOT a U.S. citizen - regardless if you are born in this country. They are going to put a stop to what is referred to as "anchor babies".

Also, as I have pointed out countless times - Trump can ban anyone he wants from coming to the US. A N Y O N E. The SCOTUS will reaffirm this in October (which is why they ruled 9-0 in his favor on the current ban.) He has both the Constitutional authority - which is why the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of Trump - as well as the legal authority (US Code 1882 sec F). Trump can ban Muslims if he wants - and there is NOTHING that an activist court can do to STOP him. They can stall, but the SCOTUS will ultimately rule in his favor.

One other thing - you have been mislead by the media. What was instituted was the FULL ban. What the SCOTUS asked for was, basically, already included in the E.O. You would do yourself a large favor by actually reading the E.O. for yourself.

This seems likely as the SC is leaning that way. But I will take a wait and see approach because you never know.

[Deleted]

Just because no one brought a court case against it at the time, doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional. If you did that now, it will be struck down faster than anything.

From United States ex. rel. Turner v. Williams:

if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.

Someone did make the arguments you are making.
The court struck them down.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, just because they are ruling the way they did, doesn't mean they are all liberal activist judges. Some of them were put in by George W. Bush.

Scotus delivered a 9-0 verdict.
The constitution and precedent is abundantly clear - Trump was right.

[Daelak]

Scotus delivered a 9-0 verdict.
The constitution and precedent is abundantly clear - Trump was right.

The 9-0 was to hear the case, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Like I said earlier in this thread, the government can neither claim national security threat, because it has already been six months with no credible threat, the prior administration already put resources into monitoring these countries beforehand, and the president himself stating that it is explicitly a muslim ban.

[Deleted]

Just brings us back to the frog in the boiling water. How long will you wait to stop the boiling?

Global warming isn't an issue presently. It will be in the future. That's the problem.

You are forgetting the important question. Did (((they))) put chemicals in the water to turn the frog gay?

[satimy]

The 9-0 was to hear the case, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Like I said earlier in this thread, the government can neither claim national security threat, because it has already been six months with no credible threat, the prior administration already put resources into monitoring these countries beforehand, and the president himself stating that it is explicitly a muslim ban.

He never said this was a Muslim ban, and if it was he forgot the majority of the worlds muslim population and to exempt the non Muslims from the countries in question.


We should just stop immigration all together, it's just a way for the rich to save money. Why are American universities getting tax money to educate china? Then we wonder why we are falling behind in math. Close the border today.

[Kujako]

There's only 'boiling' if you're a dumbass that pays attention to overblown and sensationalist media.

If your complaint is about the integration of immigrants, that is a valid issue. Their particular religion or identity is incidental and has been hyped up as a boogeyman to deceive stupid people.

They prefer to be called Congress and the President.

[Deleted]

The 9-0 was to hear the case, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

No, it had everything to do with the case.
They lifted the injunction because they believe the government will prevail in October.
If they didn't, they wouldn't have lifted the injunction.

3. Agree to hear the case and in the meantime give the administration total relief from the lower-court injunctions. This is a bit of a long shot, but far from impossible. It would require five justices agreeing to allow the rule to go into effect while the case is in process. They would do so on the basis that they expected the administration to prevail in the end. But action that bold in a case this controversial would be unusual.

[Felya]

No, it had everything to do with the case.
They lifted the injunction because they believe the government will prevail in October.
If they didn't, they wouldn't have lifted the injunction.

Your assertion is too bold, which is unusual in a case this controversial.

[Mormolyce]

No, it had everything to do with the case.
They lifted the injunction because they believe the government will prevail in October.
If they didn't, they wouldn't have lifted the injunction.

Read it again. They did not give the measure total relief from lower court injunctions. Only a very watered down version of the ban is going into effect.

[Deleted]

Read it again. They did not give the measure total relief from lower court injunctions. Only a very watered down version of the ban is going into effect.

Given how tightly the administration has defined 'Bona fide conection' - it kinda is.
It remains however that they voted 9-0 to partially lift the injunctions - With three judges saying they thought it should have been lifted in full.

[Blur4stuff]

Regardless of the ban being legal or not, the entire effort is complete bullshit. It was suppose to be temporary while they put in place something better. As others have pointed out it's been more than 90 days since the first ban. If it was truly meant to be temporary then there's no need for it now because they should already have everything finished and in place... right?

But of course they don't. They still want to use the ban because it was never about keeping the country safe.

[Mormolyce]

Given how tightly the administration has defined 'Bona fide conection' - it kinda is.
It remains however that they voted 9-0 to partially lift the injunctions - With three judges saying they thought it should have been lifted in full.

It's not tight at all.

This is a fraction of the bill that was proposed, which was already a "watered down" version (Trump's own words) of the "legal way to do it" version of a Muslim ban (which fell far short of what was promised to begin with). It accomplishes almost nothing and is mostly symbolic.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of the ban being legal or not, the entire effort is complete bullshit. It was suppose to be temporary while they put in place something better. As others have pointed out it's been more than 90 days since the first ban. If it was truly meant to be temporary then there's no need for it now because they should already have everything finished and in place... right?

But of course they don't. They still want to use the ban because it was never about keeping the country safe.

And they have steadfastly refused to specify what they need that time for.

Because, obviously, it's bullshit and this is just a farce to pretend they passed the Muslim ban they promised their gullible voters.

[Deleted]

It accomplishes almost nothing and is mostly symbolic.

course it is.
Still a win for him though.
And a win for everyone who pointed out that congress and the president have virtually unrestricted power in this area.

[Mormolyce]

course it is.
Still a win for him though.
And a win for everyone who pointed out that congress and the president have virtually unrestricted power in this area.

Incorrect, that is yet to be decided.

[Deleted]

Incorrect, that is yet to be decided.

you do know that its fairly likely that the issue won't actually be heard in October, since the issue will be rendered moot when the limited duration bans expire?