DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
It's straight up evil
Trying to ban them after destroying their homes and murdering millions
Muslim Travel Ban Thread (6/26: SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold the administration’s ban)
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Trying to ban them after destroying their homes and murdering millions
MoroccanBoy
Madness
Why did they ban Morocco tho? Of all the north African countries Morocco is the least troublesome regarding terrorism. Dumb shyt
joeychizzle
光復香港，時代革命
"Leave behind a legacy so powerful and profound so that future generations will speak of you and not forget your name."
I guess Trump thought that meant be the biggest c*nt you can be
I guess Trump thought that meant be the biggest c*nt you can be
With new court filings, Trump's travel ban appears more likely to reach Supreme Court
I'm confident this will reach the high Court. And Trump will win.
I'm confident this will reach the high Court. And Trump will win.
I'm confident you're white.
Foxmulder
Superstar
I'm confident you're white.
Last edited by a moderator:
:bernielol:
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Hood Critic
The Power Circle
He's not going to win in the Supreme Court either. The recent attacks in London will act as precedent as to why this ban isn't affective.
I won't rehash why I think Trump should win, but if this case does make it to the SC, I'll be taking ban bets.
Another L for Trump
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html
A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a ruling blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
The 10-3 ruling from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a lower court's decision to halt core portions of the executive order indefinitely.
The ban was announced in March, but never got off the ground because federal courts blocked it just hours before it was set to go into effect. It would have banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.
The court makes extensive use of Trump's comments during his campaign when he called for a full ban on Muslims from entering the United States as evidence against this executive order.
"The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary purpose is religious," the ruling states. "Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States."
CNN legal analyst and and professor at the University of Texas School of Law Steve Vladeck called the ruling "an enormous victory for the challengers to the travel ban, and a huge loss" for Trump.
This was the Trump administration's second attempt to install a travel ban. The first version, announced in January, also included Iraq.
"In its first test before a federal appeals court, the second, more nuanced version of the Executive Order still failed miserably -- and, once again, largely because of President Trump's own words, tweets, and statements," Vladeck said. "About the only thing the 10 judges in the majority disagreed about was whether President Trump's campaign statements are relevant to his motive -- but even the judges who said no still thought there was enough evidence of discriminatory intent since his inauguration to strike down the ban."
Thursday's ruling is the latest step on a likely trip to the Supreme Court. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is also evaluating the travel ban in a separate appeal. The court has not indicated when it will rule, but the travel ban would not go into effect as long as one nationwide injunction remains in effect.
"It looks increasingly likely that the justices will have to confront the travel ban -- and whether to review today's ruling -- sometime this fall," Vladeck said.
Page Pate, CNN legal analyst and adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, said he believed the attempt to revise the executive order "and make it more constitutional apparently has not worked, at least according to this court."
"I think when they revised this ban, they tried to take that all into accounts, and wisely took out any specific references to religious preferences," Pate said on CNN's "Newsroom," "and I thought that made this ban more likely to be upheld ultimately on appeal because it wasn't as facially as unconstitutional as the first travel ban."
The administration did win on one point, Vladeck noted. "The only point on which the majority opinion ruled for the President was that the order blocking the ban could not apply to him, personally, but that's a legal technicality that won't actually matter in practice."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html
A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a ruling blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
The 10-3 ruling from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a lower court's decision to halt core portions of the executive order indefinitely.
The ban was announced in March, but never got off the ground because federal courts blocked it just hours before it was set to go into effect. It would have banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.
The court makes extensive use of Trump's comments during his campaign when he called for a full ban on Muslims from entering the United States as evidence against this executive order.
"The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary purpose is religious," the ruling states. "Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States."
CNN legal analyst and and professor at the University of Texas School of Law Steve Vladeck called the ruling "an enormous victory for the challengers to the travel ban, and a huge loss" for Trump.
This was the Trump administration's second attempt to install a travel ban. The first version, announced in January, also included Iraq.
"In its first test before a federal appeals court, the second, more nuanced version of the Executive Order still failed miserably -- and, once again, largely because of President Trump's own words, tweets, and statements," Vladeck said. "About the only thing the 10 judges in the majority disagreed about was whether President Trump's campaign statements are relevant to his motive -- but even the judges who said no still thought there was enough evidence of discriminatory intent since his inauguration to strike down the ban."
Thursday's ruling is the latest step on a likely trip to the Supreme Court. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is also evaluating the travel ban in a separate appeal. The court has not indicated when it will rule, but the travel ban would not go into effect as long as one nationwide injunction remains in effect.
"It looks increasingly likely that the justices will have to confront the travel ban -- and whether to review today's ruling -- sometime this fall," Vladeck said.
Page Pate, CNN legal analyst and adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, said he believed the attempt to revise the executive order "and make it more constitutional apparently has not worked, at least according to this court."
"I think when they revised this ban, they tried to take that all into accounts, and wisely took out any specific references to religious preferences," Pate said on CNN's "Newsroom," "and I thought that made this ban more likely to be upheld ultimately on appeal because it wasn't as facially as unconstitutional as the first travel ban."
The administration did win on one point, Vladeck noted. "The only point on which the majority opinion ruled for the President was that the order blocking the ban could not apply to him, personally, but that's a legal technicality that won't actually matter in practice."
The dumbest thing is how they made public statements and quotes about their intention for the bill. If they STFU maybe it wouldn't be so easy for lawyers and judges to own this admin. They talk and project too much.
Good. Let everyone in. fukk it! No borders!!! 