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

[Worthless Loser]

The last 4 presidents have restricted immigration as well with no outcry... Obama did it something like 19 times im hearing.




edit:

politics...

The difference between Trump and the previous Presidents is that Trump ran his entire campaign on division and separation. Re-tweeting fake black crime stats with no apology that criminalized black people, saying a Mexican judge wasn't fit for the case because he's Mexican, and announcing he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US.

So people look at Trump's policies and assume they come from a root of hate/discrimination based on stuff he said during the campaign. Really everything Trump says will be under lenses because of that. It's different from Obama, who always preached unity and diversity so when he did have immigration policies like the Presidents before him, his stuff wasn't looked through lenses like Trump's.

 

[DEAD7]

The difference between Trump and the previous Presidents is that Trump ran his entire campaign on division and separation. Re-tweeting fake black crime stats with no apology that criminalized black people, saying a Mexican judge wasn't fit for the case because he's Mexican, and announcing he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US.

So people look at Trump's policies and assume they come from a root of hate/discrimination based on stuff he said during the campaign. Really everything Trump says will be under lenses because of that. It's different from Obama, who always preached unity and diversity so when he did have immigration policies like the Presidents before him, his stuff wasn't looked through lenses like Trump's.

None of this should have no bearing in court. If it was legal for Obama to do, it should be legal for Trump...

Further politicizing the judiciary is a bad thing to me

 

[Worthless Loser]

None of this should have no bearing in court. If it was legal for Obama to do, it should be legal for Trump...

Further politicizing the judiciary is a bad thing to me

Well, Trump probably should have never directly said he wanted to ban Muslims from the US on the campaign and Rudy G should have never went on Fox News and discussed the inner workings on it. I think it's having an effect on the credibility of the order.

That was briefly discussed during the appeals court hearing by one of the judges and attorneys.

 

[Pressure]

Well, Trump probably should have never directly said he wanted to ban Muslims from the US on the campaign and Rudy G should have never went on Fox News and discussed the inner workings on it. I think it's having an effect on the credibility of the order.

That was briefly discussed during the appeals court hearing by one of the judges and attorneys.

It's also directly referenced in there decision.

 

[the cac mamba]

Wont be hard. Almost anybody is better than Trump.

If Warren runs, orange Hitler is gone.

you cant be serious

tell me dudes dont think elizabeth warren would beat trump in 2020. and i would actually vote for her, in a heartbeat. im speaking completely objectively

or am i wrong? idk

I don't think Warren is a good play.

im not the only one

i just...i dont know. fresh off the hillary embarrassment? fair or not, those are the facts. i say theres no way in hell the dems run another woman in 2020

the fact is we KNOW that men got cold feet in the booth about voting for a woman. again, not that its right. its just how it is

id like to see dudes like alan grayson or al franken run, but not in the near future. maybe a decade or so, realistically

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

The last 4 presidents have restricted immigration as well with no outcry... Obama did it something like 19 times im hearing.




edit:

politics...

So why aren't conservatives praising Obama for keeping America safe from these dangerous foreigners?

 

[Pressure]

It isn't illegal, the president has that power- I just showed you the law. The president doesn't have to explain this decision to the courts. Especially if we're only talking about lawful permanent residents like greencard holders.

But you're right that the court didn't rule on the merits of the case yet except to say the administration is not likely to win (). The administration also didn't prove irreparable harm if the stay of the ban remained in place.

The Trump administration had better learn quickly that a lot of people hate him and he has to be perfect to even stand a chance. That sloppy roll out of this EO, and haphazard performance in court is not gonna cut it. At all. Law be damned.

You're right. Unless I misread it, they weren't asked to rule on the legality of the Executive order, just on the restraining order.

This is turning into a circus.

 

[Cryptocurrency Scarface]

None of the countries listed have ever harbored terrorists that attacked the US.

As someone from Sudan I know the sudanese government harboured Osama Bin Laden. However there has never been any terrorist incident involving someone of sudanese origin attacking the west. Sure the government officials and certain members of the army in Sudan are terrorists for all their war crimes in Darfur and South Sudan but in terms of civilians we don't have terrorists.

So of course the ban is ludicrous but I just had to point that out to be objective.

 

[Broke Wave]

None of this should have no bearing in court. If it was legal for Obama to do, it should be legal for Trump...

Further politicizing the judiciary is a bad thing to me

You can put up all the smoke screens you want but the fact is, Obama never had a travel ban like this in his 8 years as President. I know you really want it to be true, but it isn't. In fact ,since you are a mod now, I will ask for a 3 month ban bet if you can prove to the people in this thread or make a separate thread, that Obama had what can be termed as an even SIMILAR travel ban.


Sidenote, I once said you were a reasonable person, but you are actually a fukking moron and a horrible poster.

 

[Althalucian]

None of this should have no bearing in court. If it was legal for Obama to do, it should be legal for Trump...

Further politicizing the judiciary is a bad thing to me

The judiciary has always been political unfortunately (or, can it never not be political?). However, the real problem with this EO is that Trump rolled it out sloppily and with barely anyone in his administration to legally defend it. The dude didn't even have his cabinet in before pushing this out. I've read a lot of analysis by very right-wing people about the EO, and they all agree on this point, and are embarrassed that despite a relatively strong legal ground regarding the president's constitutional powers to enact EOs regarding national defense, he really fukked this up bigly.

Now they're saying it is good that he is backtracking with a new EO, because they think that he has a good chance of losing the original EO if it went to the supreme court, and that would be a massive embarrassment for him. Of course, it was already still an embarrassment for him to lose twice in court over this EO. Think about that - dude couldn't even put in place good and appropriate lawyers to defend his own constitutional powers. He even swapped his lawyers out literally right before the first case. A fukking disaster.

Obama took things much more slowly and himself is a lawyer. ...I think we all know amateur hour when we see it.

 

[Althalucian]

The judiciary has always been political unfortunately (or, can it never not be political?). However, the real problem with this EO is that Trump rolled it out sloppily and with barely anyone in his administration to legally defend it. The dude didn't even have his cabinet in before pushing this out. I've read a lot of analysis by very right-wing people about the EO, and they all agree on this point, and are embarrassed that despite a relatively strong legal ground regarding the president's constitutional powers to enact EOs regarding national defense, he really fukked this up bigly.

Now they're saying it is good that he is backtracking with a new EO, because they think that he has a good chance of losing the original EO if it went to the supreme court, and that would be a massive embarrassment for him. Of course, it was already still an embarrassment for him to lose twice in court over this EO. Think about that - dude couldn't even put in place good and appropriate lawyers to defend his own constitutional powers. He even swapped his lawyers out literally right before the first case. A fukking disaster.

Obama took things much more slowly and himself is a lawyer. ...I think we all know amateur hour when we see it.

And that's from a conservative lens. I think you know the more liberal/moderate one.

 

[Starman]

agreed except for the part about the court the executive not having to explain themselves to the court, that is a big mistake, its not just wrong, the court can review whatever the hell it wants, its a bad strategy to tell a judge something like that for emotional reasons lol, they aint gonna like that, they might rule against you just so they could show whose boss, which i think was part of the reason trump lost

I agree about offending the judges, not that it should matter- but you know how that goes.

also the whole thing about the states not having standing is wrong, since the courts just ruled that obama's executive order to give amnesty to young kids was wrong based on the principle that states have standing if an executive order to give amnesty to young kids was wrong based on the principle that states have standing if an executive order harms them

I agree with this guy. It's a stretch.

"Applied more generally, this ruling would give state attorneys general extraordinarily broad powers to act essentially as lawyers for actual or potential immigrants — merely by pointing to the alleged costs incurred by key state institutions if they are even temporarily deprived of the immigrant’s presence. While the standing ruling might be more credible if applied to individual immigrants whose exclusion from the country causes specific and identifiable harm to the state, here the court used the possibility of specific harm to confer general standing on states to act on behalf of immigrants as a class. This is extraordinary."

Read more at: The Ninth Circuit Just Issued a Dangerous Ruling against Donald Trump’s Immigration Order

but i agree that on the merits and overall trump is in the right

Yup.

Well, Trump probably should have never directly said he wanted to ban Muslims from the US on the campaign and Rudy G should have never went on Fox News and discussed the inner workings on it. I think it's having an effect on the credibility of the order.

That was briefly discussed during the appeals court hearing by one of the judges and attorneys.

The difference between Trump and the previous Presidents is that Trump ran his entire campaign on division and separation. Re-tweeting fake black crime stats with no apology that criminalized black people, saying a Mexican judge wasn't fit for the case because he's Mexican, and announcing he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US.

So people look at Trump's policies and assume they come from a root of hate/discrimination based on stuff he said during the campaign. Really everything Trump says will be under lenses because of that. It's different from Obama, who always preached unity and diversity so when he did have immigration policies like the Presidents before him, his stuff wasn't looked through lenses like Trump's.

You're caught in your feelings. Not the law. But you're far from alone. The president has this authority- even if you don't like him.

 

[DEAD7]

You can put up all the smoke screens you want but the fact is, Obama never had a travel ban like this in his 8 years as President. I know you really want it to be true, but it isn't. In fact ,since you are a mod now, I will ask for a 3 month ban bet if you can prove to the people in this thread or make a separate thread, that Obama had what can be termed as an even SIMILAR travel ban.

I'm not that invested in Trump or this EO... I just think suspending immigration from those countries is a good thing.

Sidenote, I once said you were a reasonable person, but you are actually a fukking moron and a horrible poster.

 

[DEAD7]

The judiciary has always been political unfortunately (or, can it never not be political?). However, the real problem with this EO is that Trump rolled it out sloppily and with barely anyone in his administration to legally defend it. The dude didn't even have his cabinet in before pushing this out. I've read a lot of analysis by very right-wing people about the EO, and they all agree on this point, and are embarrassed that despite a relatively strong legal ground regarding the president's constitutional powers to enact EOs regarding national defense, he really fukked this up bigly.

I just pray nothing happens, cause they will spin any attack into more executive power...


Imagine Trump being able to say that he(the president) was unable to keep the citizenry safe because of judicial restraints. True fascism would be upon us.

 

[General Mills]

Only gonna take one incident for this dude to take shyt all the way over.

Blame the judges for not acting and issue martial law, then get shyt crackin.

Yup. He has basically already said it. If something pops off Trump will be on Twitter like