lol @ lower courts *Based SCOTUS ReinstatesTravel ban*

[Jack Davenport]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries/

Hail!

Suck it.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Court rules foreign nationals must have legitimate ties to the U.S.

A reasonable decision.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d2...ravel Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

[bobjustbob]

Go march in the streets because of this decision. Play that racist card.

Where is this world wide statute that everyone from anywhere can go to anyplace they want? I, as a USA citizen, can't go anyplace that I want. Nations are allowed to decide travel restrictions.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Go march in the streets because of this decision. Play that racist card.

Where is this world wide statute that everyone from anywhere can go to anyplace they want? I, as a USA citizen, can't go anyplace that I want. Nations are allowed to decide travel restrictions.

Let's spoon.

 

[FOUser#4510856320198a]

Let's spoon.

:rofl:

- - - Updated - - -

Slam dunk, uncontested. "Does the President of the United States have Constitutional authority to restrict ingress to the United States, in the interest of national security?... Who wants to take this one?"

 

[bobjustbob]

Let's spoon.

You buy the pizza and I'll bring the wine.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Slam dunk, uncontested. "Does the President of the United States have Constitutional authority to restrict ingress to the United States, in the interest of national security?... Who wants to take this one?"

The Supremes understand and respect separation of powers unlike the activist lower courts.

The final word will be after October but a unanimous decision is encouraging.

I am confident that the court will uphold and respect the constitutional authority of the President to restrict foreign nationals from entering the country if he/she finds it to be in the interest of national security.

You buy the pizza and I'll bring the wine.

Slut.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

It will be a great Puddin' Wrasslin' Thursday fo sho.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Every day I wake up and there's not a Clinton or Obama in the White House makes me wanna do a dance.

 

[sean miguel]

So when does President Trump send US Marshals to take those activist judges in Hawaii, Wasington State and the 9th Circus into custody for usurping executive authority? They may be evil leftists fucks, but they know the law.

Sick of this shit. The left is just begging for a civil war.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

 

[Luxman]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...erson-who-has-recently-visited-muslim-country

 

[sean miguel]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...erson-who-has-recently-visited-muslim-country

Obama's list.

 

[himperv203]

Here is trump dancing with the arabs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2dHgR9Ozaw

 

[Luxman]

Obama's list.

Did Trump plagiarize the list?

 

[himperv203]

Here is trump dancing with the arabs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2dHgR9Ozaw

 

[bodie54]

Slam dunk, uncontested. "Does the President of the United States have Constitutional authority to restrict ingress to the United States, in the interest of national security?... Who wants to take this one?"

The '65 Immigration and Nationality Act amended it's 1952 predecessor. 'One of the act's components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.' The '52 law has still been used to bar certain segments of foreign nationals, but Trump's multi nation blanket ban has no precedent. The closest thing to it would be Carter's ban on Iranian citizen visas, but that was not a "security measure", it was a sanction prompted by the holding of U.S. citizens as hostages by a specific foreign government.

So when does President Trump send US Marshals to take those activist judges in Hawaii, Wasington State and the 9th Circus into custody for usurping executive authority?

What about the 6th circuit court? They shot Captain America down too. Should we send them off to the gulag as well?
Maybe we should just disbar and inter any ("so-called") judge Trump has an issue with. Like for instance that "Mexican"judge (who was born in Indiana) that caused him so many problems with the Trump University case that Trump ended up settling even though he insisted it would be an "easy win"and that he "never settles"

 

[Jack Davenport]

The '65 Immigration and Nationality Act amended it's 1952 predecessor. 'One of the act's components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.' The '52 law has still been used to bar certain segments of foreign nationals, but Trump's multi nation blanket ban has no precedent. The closest thing to it would be Carter's ban on Iranian citizen visas, but that was not a "security measure", it was a sanction prompted by the holding of U.S. citizens as hostages by a specific foreign government.

It still set quotas and limits.

Kennedy sought to circumvent McCarran-Walter. The bottom line is that the executive branch can set limits and restrictions on foreign entry. The Supreme Court recognizes this when open borders nuts like you do not.

Liberals have a history of lying to get a bill passed (Obamacare) then playing dumb after it turns out to be a lie.

These are Ted Kennedy's remarks on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…" . How has that worked out?

So your point is?.. SCOTUS agreed with Trump, and the next ruling will be the precedent for future challenges.

The ACA and The 1965 Immigration Act should be textbook examples as to how liberals lie to get legislation passed and why Conservatives should never trust them.

 

[bodie54]

The Supreme Court recognizes this when open borders nuts like you do not

Can we try to dispense with this labeling? I think it's at least the third time you've flung this false, baseless shit at me and I'm weary of it, as I'm sure you would be of being repeatedly mislabeled by me. I am most definitely not an "open borders nut", let alone an "open borders advocate". You've also claimed I was a Sanders supporter at least three times, which I most assuredly was not. So again, maybe try losing the false and inflammatory labeling. Fair enough? It certainly doesn't do a thing for your credibility.

The ACA and The 1965 Immigration Act should be textbook examples as to how liberals lie to get legislation passed and why Conservatives should never trust them.

With your implacable antipathy towards liberals you can't seem to prevent yourself from asserting, in pavlovian fashion, that these "examples" you provide boil down to nothing more than premeditated "lies". Meanwhile a great many highly esteemed analysts look at them from far broader, logical and complex perspectives. For instance, re the '65 act, the primary focus was having it be an adjunct to other anti-discrimination laws that were sweeping the nation at the time, and long long overdue in doing so. The fact they didn't always pan out just as they'd been envisioned doesn't mean they weren't well intended, or that they were based on "lies".

as an side: if I wanted to point out all the times conservatives have lied to get legislation passed I'd be sitting here typing for years.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Can we try to dispense with this labeling? I think it's at least the third time you've flung this false, baseless shit at me and I'm weary of it, as I'm sure you would be of being repeatedly mislabeled by me. I am most definitely not an "open borders nut", let alone an "open borders advocate". You've also claimed I was a Sanders supporter at least three times, which I most assuredly was not. So again, maybe try losing the false and inflammatory labeling. Fair enough? It certainly doesn't do a thing for your credibility.



With your implacable antipathy towards liberals you can't seem to prevent yourself from asserting, in pavlovian fashion, that these "examples" you provide boil down to nothing more than premeditated "lies". Meanwhile a great many highly esteemed analysts look at them from far broader, logical and complex perspectives. For instance, re the '65 act, the primary focus was having it be an adjunct to other anti-discrimination laws that were sweeping the nation at the time, and long long overdue in doing so. The fact they didn't always pan out just as they'd been envisioned doesn't mean they weren't well intended, or that they were based on "lies".

as an side: if I wanted to point out all the times conservatives have lied to get legislation passed I'd be sitting here typing for years.

I'd like to think you're not an open borders nut, but every time the topic comes up you side with the ..well...open borders nuts.

The 1965 Immigration Act should not have been considered an adjunct to other anti- discrimination laws as the people being addressed weren't U S. Citizens and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the constitution. Thanks for demonstrating the simple mindedness and one size fits all mentality of the left.

The law was created just as other major liberal legislation predicated on lies with the goal to transform a society.

What major (transformative) legislation based upon lies has been created by conservatives in the modern era?