Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban

[Pessimystic]

That's not what we're talking about though.

I could have sworn that

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/142418537/

this was the spark that started this conversation.
So point out the differences between the two orders. With links to real data.
Unless your whole hangup is the "rhetoric" you mentioned.

 

[Rational Poster]

I could have sworn that

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/142418537/

this was the spark that started this conversation.
So point out the differences between the two orders. With links to real data.
Unless your whole hangup is the "rhetoric" you mentioned.

So there is no point when Trump's motives are a factor to you?

Never mind the fact the first attempt was completely rejected because it did not include any of those clauses and actually made exceptions for Christians?

 

[Pessimystic]

So there is no point when Trump's motives are a factor to you?

Never mind the fact the first attempt was completely rejected because it did not include any of those clauses and actually made exceptions for Christians?

I don't care about any of that.

 

[Lord Coke]

So are you suggesting that the Constitution should be suspended or tempered? I'm a bit surprised since I know that you post quite a bit of 2ndA stuff.

Not at all. The Constitution gives the executive fairly broad powers to act outside of the U.S. Especially when Congress has not voted against him. There are many things that the executive can constitutional and morally do to foreign nationals that are outside of the U.S. that would be both unconstitutional and immoral if done to U.S. citizens at home. Note even immigration judges are part of the Executive Here is a primer on the subject
https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-US-Immigration-Policy

@JamesRussler can you chime in here. Foreign powers is not my strong suit
\

 

[Rational Poster]

I don't care about any of that.

That's already abundantly clear.

 

[Pessimystic]

That's already abundantly clear.

And?
You still have not provided one shred of evidence to support your argument.

 

[Rational Poster]

And?
You still have not provided one shred of evidence to support your argument.

I did, you just didn't like it.

 

[Pessimystic]

I did, you just didn't like it.

I must have missed it, so how about humoring me.

 

[Lord Coke]

Wow, after reading your post, I'm so persuaded that blocking travel from terrorist-supporting countries is a bad idea.

Keep your head down for a couple weeks until those dubs clear. The forum can't afford to lose you.

 

[Rational Poster]

I must have missed it, so how about humoring me.

Sorry I'm about to head out for the day. Feel free to click back and read by posts again yourself.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Holy shit, I've rarely seen liberals lose so badly in arguments over this, especially on CNN.

Liberal Guest - This is a straight up muslim ban.
Wolf Blitzer - But most muslim majority countries aren't on the list and 2 countries with little to no muslim populations are on the list.
Liberal Guest - But listen to Trump's words.
Wolf Blitzer - But that was only said during the campaign.
Liberal Guest - The first thing Trump says is the truth. You have to take him at his initial word.
Wolf Blitzer - So what about all the muslim majority countries that aren't on the list.
Liberal Guest - But that list can grow.

Lololololol. It's like debating with a Sherdogger.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I wonder if people would have a problem if say....Chechnya was added to that list?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

So you want Saudi Arabia on it too

And Russia

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Are you not aware of the number of Somalis in Minnesota? FYI, most came through the Mexican border.

Somalis in Tijuana, Mexico waiting to cross border seeking asylum...

You are fake news

 

[M3t4tr0n]

And Russia

Add Israel and Chicago too

 

[Smok3r]

But the picture you posted. Prove that those are a group of Somalis. They aren't and you posted fake news.

LOL

You are fake news

LOL!

Yes, the photo was a mistake, but Somalis have come in droves through Mexico, as have Haitians (pictured), and asylum seekers from several other East African countries.

 

[waiguoren]

As for B, well, that's simple. All of the pronouns in this passage are "he." What if Hillary had won? I guess this law wouldn't apply to them? Is that reasonable? Of course not - because obviously, we interpret the law. It's not some word of God from on high, its meaning self evident because it is the living word of a divine being. We need qualified people to read it through and say "No, there is some wiggle room here, and it allows for ____." What a trouble state we are in where the most qualified interpreters in the country and dismissed out of hand by regular Joes because all they're doing is "legislating from the bench"!...

The reason I ignored this the first time is because I found it the least compelling of anything you wrote. But since you insisted: prior to second-wave feminism (circa 1970), the pronoun "he" and associated pronouns served as the standard pronouns expressing indefinite gender. That's true both in criminal and in civil law.

 

[waiguoren]

That seems like an obviously flawed maxim. If the spirit of the law requires new rules to maintain the integrity of said law, it seems self evident that new rules must be implemented. Why on earth would you consider this a sign of "legislating from the bench"?

The foundation of the Republic is a system of separation of powers. Congress, together with the president, has the sole power to create law. The judiciary has no power to create law.

If the existing law lacks "integrity" (as you put it) but is not unconstitutional, then it is the role of Congress to revise that law. Judges are empowered only to interpret the law with reference to the US Constitution.

 

[waiguoren]

the supreme court just gave the president more power.

How do you figure?

I think it's pretty clear that Congress gave the president this power in 1952.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Funny how the supreme Court has already ruled on the travel ban, but have never seen a case in regards to section 213 of the Patriot Act in 17 years time.