Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a country on the list is:
1. Openly hostile towards the USA, I support the ban.
2. In chaos and unable to provide reliable background information, I support the ban.
3. Is unwilling or unable to co-operate with the USA in the war on terror, I support the ban.
4. The culture of the nation is incapable with our own, I support the ban.
The lower courts arguments are what are meaningless. They were meaningless at the time they wrote. The meaning is in the constitutional authority given to a president over immigration policy. Which has been confirmed by previous Supreme Courts. That is meaning. The rest is a loser’s whine. Losers have nothing of meaning. Might want to stop deluding yourself with meaningless, against the law argument.
7-2.
Simple.
Sorry, I didn't realize my post was so complicated that you would not comprehend it. I did not say anything about authority, or law arguments, or lower courts. I said a "ban" which still allows travel from the said countries is meaningless. It is also meaningless because it omits the countries which have produced the more terrorists. There is no need for an EO to instruct immigration to pay more attention to travelers coming from certain countries, because they already do that. So, yes, it is meaningless.
If a country on the list is:
1. Openly hostile towards the USA, I support the ban.
2. In chaos and unable to provide reliable background information, I support the ban.
3. Is unwilling or unable to co-operate with the USA in the war on terror, I support the ban.
4. The culture of the nation is incapable with our own, I support the ban.
It is not a ban. People from those countries can still enter the US. Of course the SC is ok with such measure, when it changes practically nothing.
Luckily for the countries that have produced all of the terrorists that have murdered hundreds of American on American soil, and who hit us on 9/11---they are still allowed to come in. Saudi Arabia thanks Trump.
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Activists try obsfuscating, skirting, weasel wording and bring up arguments that will not, do not stand up in courts of law. Which is exactly what happened today. Activism in search of any flimsy justification were chastised, knocked down, over ruled.
I did not like, nor agree with Justice Robert’s original majority re The ACA’s individual mandate. He was right though, the penalty was nothing less nor more than a tax.
Now, the individual mandate penalty, err tax, can be swept away as part of the tax package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Every judge you disagree with must be an activist. LOL
But Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI! Something Hillary did many, many times and was never charged with. And people wonder why Americans are tired of the left and the swamp.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
