Muslim Travel Ban Thread (6/26: SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold the administration’s ban)

[Pressure]

He said he needed a 90 day ban to develop and implement extreme vetting procedures. That was on January 27. It's now June 2.



Shouldn't he have the new procedures in place by now? Why does he still need a "temporary" ban?

I've been saying the same thing. Then my friend said if he never gets a temporary ban he can't continue to extend it indefinitely while they "work out the details."

:BlackTrumpThought:

 

[the cac mamba]

Why not?

There's a 5-4 conservative majority and there's really no reason to think they won't just vote along partisan lines.

i dont know, breh. they'd have a hard time justifying this

the supreme court isnt just a$$hole politicians, they have to legally rationalize this and actually back it up. they obviously have their beliefs but this would be pretty embarrassing

 

[the cac mamba]

He said he needed a 90 day ban to develop and implement extreme vetting procedures. That was on January 27. It's now June 2.



Shouldn't he have the new procedures in place by now? Why does he still need a "temporary" ban?

not to mention that nothing has actually happened as a result of the ban not existing :deadjay:

 

[Starman]

@Great Scott . You wanna do this still. If the SC upholds the travel ban I take a 30 day ban. If they strike it down you take a 30 day ban.

Did the SC say they'll take it up? I'd much rather be rid of @4d 6f 6e 65 79 , but I'm down.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

He said he needed a 90 day ban to develop and implement extreme vetting procedures. That was on January 27. It's now June 2.



Shouldn't he have the new procedures in place by now? Why does he still need a "temporary" ban?

Trump is not interested in actually governing. They NEVER finish ANYTHING in the time period that they originally say is required.

It's honestly some high school shyt whereby they say "we'll get it to you in 60 days" then at 4:59PM on day 59, right before everyone is leaving is the office they realize "oh shyt we're supposed to release the _____ plan tomorrow!!!"

Then they throw together a one page "outline of principles" or some shyt like that. Then nothing happens.

 

[William F. Russell]

Why not?

There's a 5-4 conservative majority and there's really no reason to think they won't just vote along partisan lines.

They're not understanding how SCOTUS works, breh...

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

"but the vatican has walls, lads!"

 

[William F. Russell]

i dont know, breh. they'd have a hard time justifying this

the supreme court isnt just a$$hole politicians, they have to legally rationalize this and actually back it up. they obviously have their beliefs but this would be pretty embarrassing

This is Drumpf we're dealing with though.

 

[the cac mamba]

This is Drumpf we're dealing with though.

i just feel like they're really throwing their legal credibility into consideration as opposed to a politician, who has zero credibility. i mean some judge from hawaii can tell that it's bullshyt, but they cant? i dont know

im not betting a fukkin thing on the outcome of this tho i cant call it at all

 

[Pressure]

They haven't been able to successfully make a string argument in any court regarding any of their travel bans that counters his previous rhetoric and there's no reason to believe they will now.

It's basically been,

"The president has ride ranging authority regarding immigration."

"While this is true, it is also unconstitutional to ban a group of people based solely on their religion."

"That's not what we're doing."

"we have clips, tweets, and even your own campaign site saying you were going to instill a Muslim ban. Further one of your advisors and surrogates is on TV saying you approached him. On how you could skirt the law and institute a Muslim ban."

"So what if we are, the president has wide ranging discretion on immigration."


"Hrmmm.... Denied."

 

[fact]

It would be embarassing for the country until a falsified attack happened then others might follow along.

Internment camps for Muslims maybe?

If he wants to do it, he will try to do it. He thrives off of public opposition, we have a real "maverick" in the United States. The citizens of this country are the real winners here, so happy to have someone in office with such strong nationalist ideals. Let's get all these "rapeugees" out.

 

[Black Panther]

Honestly, I think the SCOTUS will rule against Trump. The arguments that Trump and his team have put together to defend it is

You'd have to ignore everything that was said on the campaign trail about it being a "Muslim ban", which I don't think anyone could successfully argue for doing.

Besides, no terrorist attacks have occurred in the US since Trump was sworn in, so the urgency that Trump was trying to put on the situation has now proven to be bogus.

Spoiler

Not to mention the small, minor detail that THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK SINCE [AND INCLUDING] 9/11 THAT THIS BAN WOULD HAVE PREVENTED.

 

[Uncle Hotep]

I guess we're about to find out how much of a joke those conservative judges are.

I'd consider plans for forcably overthrowing this administration if they ruled in favor of the travel ban.

Delete this

 

[Uncle Hotep]

Honestly, I think the SCOTUS will rule against Trump. The arguments that Trump and his team have put together to defend it is

You'd have to ignore everything that was said on the campaign trail about it being a "Muslim ban", which I don't think anyone could successfully argue for doing.

Besides, no terrorist attacks have occurred in the US since Trump was sworn in, so the urgency that Trump was trying to put on the situation has now proven to be bogus.

Spoiler

Not to mention the small, minor detail that THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK SINCE [AND INCLUDING] 9/11 THAT THIS BAN WOULD HAVE PREVENTED.

would have prevented Manchester

 

[Black Panther]

would have prevented Manchester

Where is Manchester located, breh? :mjstare: