And confirms the Constitutional basis for the travel ban.
Lots of winning going on at the SCOTUS these days
Lots of winning going on at the SCOTUS these days
SCOTUS upholds Travel Ban
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Sotomeyers dissent is exactly what is wrong with the liberal justices. They shouldn't be writing on political lines. Is it constitutional? If so, nothing else should matter. Whether or not Trump said something about Muslims while campaigning has NOTHING to do with whether a law is constitutional.
Sotomeyer comparing American citizens (the interned Japanese-Americans) to visitors is exactly why Progressive arguments get quickly shot down.
I wasn't for the ban, but it was upheld because the Progressive justices want to compare apples-to-oranges.
Stolen supreme court seat stolen democracy. The system was abused to get these results.
Congrats on the ban though. Trump just wanted a few months to figure out what was going on now that he has had over a year he shouldn't need it any more.
Congrats on the ban though. Trump just wanted a few months to figure out what was going on now that he has had over a year he shouldn't need it any more.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
At this point, it's really more about smacking down these liberal AGs and judges in west coast states that are wasting our dollars with bringing these frivolous injunctions and lawsuits against clearly constitutional actions.
Take a step back and think about this from a constitutional perspective.
1. Should our country be able to regulate who comes into the country, be it legally or illegally.
2. If we should, which branch of government should have the authority to administer those regulations?
Hint: #1 has already been answered, and yes the government has the authority to regulate who comes in.
The SCOTUS merely ruled that, yes, the Executive had the right to define and enforce such rules.
They purposely did not attempt validate or otherwise say if the rules were correct or fair, and those can be addressed in further lawsuits. But they did assert that the Executive has the right and power to do so, when it comes to non-citizens and issuing Visas.
Frankly, I think those who challenged the Executive Order were pretty naive. Even the ACLU has been disappointing as of late, and I'm pro-ACLU for the most part (their 'change' on the 'unpopular speech' regarding the 1st Amendment may change that though).
And the dissenting opinion was talking about a completely different issue. It made the case that the Executive doesn't have the right to herd citizens into camps, which is very much true ... and utterly nothing to do with the ruling. We're talking non-citizen visitors and issuing Visas.
Aw, guess it's a good thing this Travel Ban does nothing even remotely close to that! Spot on reference tweet!
Fried Cuckin, since you are such a political smarty pants, please remind me who said "Elections have consequences."
I just can't remember who would have said something so crass and hateful.
Okay, this is getting out-of-hand.
The 1944 ruling affected existing legal residents and citizens!
The 2018 ruling affected new non-resident visitors and Visa requests!
This is why the US media and Progressives are off-their-rocker. Even Roberts was trying to say that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-travel-ban-decision/?utm_term=.c7ebaba2b7b4
The 1944 ruling affected existing legal residents and citizens!
The 2018 ruling affected new non-resident visitors and Visa requests!
This is why the US media and Progressives are off-their-rocker. Even Roberts was trying to say that.
“Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so,” Roberts wrote, “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-travel-ban-decision/?utm_term=.c7ebaba2b7b4
