╌>

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  it-is-me  •  6 years ago  •  110 comments

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, has upheld Trump’s travel ban and has reinstated it. To me, this is an example of how silly and stupid we have been since Trump was — not us. There has been no question that Trump was totally constitutionally within his rights to issue this travel ban.
An act of Congress that we read to you many times explicitly granted to Trump the official constitutional powers to do exactly what he did and more if he wanted to in his travel ban. It was stayed by all these lower courts and then upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit. And it was only a matter of time before it got to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reinstated it and said they’re gonna hear arguments in October.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1  seeder  It Is ME    6 years ago

It's a bitch when laws of the land are actually upheld by the "HIGH" court...… pissing on the "LIBERAL" laden courts. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1    6 years ago

'This 'man' was not elected to tiptoe around your feelings

He was elected to get the job done.'

On that stupid ass rump meme

What job would that be?  

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
1.1.1  Rmando  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    6 years ago

Making America Great Again, of course....

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.1.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    6 years ago
What job would that be?

And yet you comment anyway ? Thinking 2

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Rmando @1.1.1    6 years ago
'Making America Great Again, of course....'

laughing dude

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @1    6 years ago

The usual suspects will be all atwitter over this.

I think I will enjoy the next few days of massive whining!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Texan1211  replied to    6 years ago

And Kleenex!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.3.3  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.2    6 years ago

Dammit I knew I should have bought stock in butt hurt cream two years ago.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.3.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bugsy @1.3.3    6 years ago

Look how much you would have saved if you did own stock.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.3.7  bugsy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.4    6 years ago

Saved, hell. I would be rich. You guys buy that shit by the case.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  bugsy @1.3.7    6 years ago

And to think the court is not yet done.  That decision about whether government workers can be compelled to pay union dues whether they want to join or not is still out there.   It was 4-4 last time after Scalia passed away.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @1    6 years ago

We all knew how it would go in the end! All the law professors from Johnathan Turley to Alan Dershowitz said the SCOTUS would have to back Trump on what it says in the Coinstitution. All those lower court activist judges really thought they could prevail with their nonsense about th President's intent

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  It Is ME @1    6 years ago

Celebration 🎉 🎊!  Party Victory!  Clappingla de dathumbs up

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2  seeder  It Is ME    6 years ago

Obama did what Trump did. Where's the REAL BEEF ? thinking

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
3  seeder  It Is ME    6 years ago

Another Trump WIN !

Victory Dinner to be held at the "Red Hen" !

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.1  Sunshine  replied to  It Is ME @3    6 years ago

Would like to see them ask a president to leave.  Women and children are easy targets for the spineless.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sunshine @3.1    6 years ago

They should do that!  Great idea 💡!  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4  Texan1211    6 years ago

Hmmm...how long before the liberals come to eat their giant helping of crow?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
4.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @4    6 years ago

When SCOTUS slams them with many more losses.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @4    6 years ago

Oh, in about 4 and a half months

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3    6 years ago

RED WAVE! RED WAVE! RED WAVE!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4    6 years ago

They'll hide now. They are only good at ganging up on women in restaurants & movie theatres

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.4    6 years ago

Probably explains why the pussy hats are so popular with them!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4.4.1    6 years ago

Pussy hats, hoodies and masks

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.4.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.4    6 years ago

I got a great seed up by a woman calling them all out on that today.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  Texan1211    6 years ago

Man, oh man, what ever shall they do now?

Texas election map largely upheld, California law regarding anti-abortion clinics struck down, Trump's travel ban upheld.

There will much wailing and gnashing of teeth today!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @5    6 years ago

Maxine Waters......Take us AWAY ! laughing dude

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @5.1    6 years ago

Maxine Waters is a disgrace, and the idiotic voters who keep reelecting that trash are displaying an AMAZING amount of stupidity.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.1.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    6 years ago

That's the "Left" for ya. 

I hear "Tolerance" is their mainstay. Just haven't seen it yet. Eye Roll

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.2    6 years ago

They are extremely tolerant--just as long as you think exactly like them!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.1.4  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    6 years ago

"One of Us....One of Us....One of Us !"

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
5.1.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    6 years ago

Nope, they exhibit an amazing amount of greed.  Incumbents get re-elected not so much of what laws they pass or how they campaign; but for how much money they bring to their district or state from the Federal level.  Just look at the late, not so great, John Murtha from PA.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    6 years ago

Two years later and Trump hasn't figured out "what the hell is going on" yet.  And his extreme vetting plan obviously never happened, since he said the travel ban would end once he got his "extreme vetting " into place. That was a year and a half ago. Are they on snail's time over there in the White House? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6    6 years ago

Gee, whatever happened to all the whining about some mythical "Muslim ban"?

And how Texas voter maps would be struck down?

And the California law placing restrictions on anti-abortion clinics?

W-a-h, w-a-h.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.3  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @6    6 years ago
Two years later and Trump hasn't figured out "what the hell is going on" yet.

Sure he did. That's why the "Travel Ban" is back in place. He knew, and the "SUPREME" court said GO !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    6 years ago
That was a year and a half ago

Well the activist judges put all that on hold, so now we make em' all wait another year and a half and maybe add to the list!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
7  Sunshine    6 years ago

The TDS crowd surely will loose it again.

Why do they not want to protect their own country?  Because Trump implemented the ban...crying

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @7    6 years ago

I agree, with one small correction.

The TDS crowd never HAD it to lose!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    6 years ago

th.jpg LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.1    6 years ago

That is ALMOST as good as the election night pictures of Democrats wandering aimlessly about, all hope gone, tears streaming, wondering how Abuela blew the election!

But my all-time favorite HAS to be the freaking idiots and their little "Screaming at the Sky" day!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.1    6 years ago

You found a picture of John?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @7    6 years ago
Why do they not want to protect their own country?

Because they hate it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    6 years ago

Sanity wins.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    6 years ago

And the Constitution!!!

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
9  Rmando    6 years ago

God Bless Trump! God Bless the SCOTUS!

The left is going to learn what the word "sovereignty" means no matter how long it takes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Rmando @9    6 years ago

Amen brother!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
10  Sunshine    6 years ago

The nutcases will start protesting at airports again, where American citizens almost have to get buck naked to just board a plane in their own country.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @10    6 years ago
The nutcases will start protesting at airports again

Not as quickly as they did before when the Obama holdovers were still in government. That time the protesters & the ACLU lawyers were at the airport before security agents even got their orders

 
 
 
Silent_Hysteria
Freshman Silent
11  Silent_Hysteria    6 years ago

A lot of salt on social media coming from the many on the left over this... people calling for violence.  The escalation continues.  Even when the highest court rules they refuse to follow laws....

now im not saying they aren't allowed to be outraged... I just find it funny the same group that likes saying things like "when SCOTUS rules the second doesn't cover anything but a musket then that makes it law!" seem to think those same set of rules apply when it's a ruling you don't like :/

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11    6 years ago
A lot of salt on social media coming from the many on the left over this... people calling for violence.

That what they do

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
12  tomwcraig    6 years ago

The SCOTUS used the exact same reasoning that I used many times when talking about the Travel Ban EO.  Trump's tweets are irrelevant to the actual text of the EO and that the EO was narrow in its scope and therefore not a "Muslim ban".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1  Texan1211  replied to  tomwcraig @12    6 years ago

Many people are completely incapable of grasping what you wrote.

They still can't tell the difference between a campaign speech and an E.O.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
12.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1    6 years ago

I know.  They kept saying it was an illegal EO because of what he said during the campaign.  The lower courts that struck it down said the same thing.  Frankly, those lower court judges should be impeached for failing to do their due diligence and reading the EO's text and then comparing the countries to the list of majority Muslim countries out there.  There are 50 countries with more than 50% Muslim populations and the EO only affected 7 countries and a couple of them were not Muslim countries at all!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  tomwcraig @12.1.1    6 years ago

Yep.

I still can't grasp the "logic" that is was EVER a Muslim ban when it didn't even mention Muslims or affect around 90% of the world's Muslims!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  tomwcraig @12    6 years ago

That's the way to read law - with your head not your heart - as it was written

 
 
 
agent provocateur
Freshman Silent
13  agent provocateur    6 years ago

SCOTUS smackdown!  Libs tried to gin up animosity and civil unrest under the guise of religious repression.  It was clear that the ban was determined by country and the ability to vet their own citizens, no matter what religion.  It appears that the saner heads on SCOTUS prevailed and we will not leave our national security to the vetting done by other countries that we do not trust.  As the US gains confidence in the security policies of these nations, the citizens will be allowed entry.  Just as Chad had the ban lifted in April due to new vetting procedures put in place that met US scrutiny standards.

The demonization of Donald Trump hit a brick wall today.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14  Vic Eldred    6 years ago

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the President find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here ,” Roberts wrote.


 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
16  1ofmany    6 years ago

To me, the majority tried to make the case as much as possible about the authority Congress granted the president of United States (meaning the office, not Trump). The question then became whether Trump had rationally exercised the broad authority granted to the President. Trump’s colorful statements showing bias were treated as irrelevant if he had an independent raional basis for his action. It’s hard to say that he didn’t have a rational basis for acting  against these countries when congress, itself, had previously declared these same countries dangerous. This is all straightforward and logical. 

What was a little surprising is that Thomas went out of his way to say that he didn’t think district courts had the power to issue nation-wide injunctions and pretty much invited someone to challenge their authority in a lawsuit. He wouldn’t have written that if his concern weren’t shared by at least a couple of judges. This is a really big deal.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
16.1  tomwcraig  replied to  1ofmany @16    6 years ago

The reason Trump’s tweets and campaign rhetoric were irrelevant was because each of the countries listed in the ban either were a sponsor of terrorism (Iran and North Korea) or a nation in absolute turmoil (the rest of the list). Those two things alone make the ban a legitimate and legal act.  The fact that no one else saw beyond the rhetoric shows how Short-sighted and panicked they all were.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
17  XXJefferson51    6 years ago

I’d just like to remind everyone that these and other 5-4 decisions we won this session of the court were made possible because Trump upset the wicked witch in the 2016 election.  Had she won we would have lost all these cases and it would be our liberal friends doing all the celebrating.  Thank God for Trump!  praying dudela de da

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
17.1  1ofmany  replied to  XXJefferson51 @17    6 years ago

If old Ginny leaves the bench🤞, Trump can appoint another judge for a 6-3 split. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
18  Paula Bartholomew    6 years ago

Is this the same travel ban as the original, the one that did not include the country(s) where the 9-11 bombers were from?

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
18.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @18    6 years ago

Yes. Saudi Arabia supports extreme vetting. Why have a travel ban for there?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
19      6 years ago

Last Line of Defense on Abortion Rights: Two G.O.P. Women

Democrats are practically powerless to stop President Trump’s Supreme Court pick. So all eyes are on Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, with the fate of Roe v. Wade at stake.

 
 

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH


70 visitors