The SCOTUS Rules For Travel Ban

[OKTexas]

No link yet. It is just being announced.

Vote was 5-4 reaffirming the President has the authority in immigration
cases.

Soooo the four left winger USSC judges wanted to allow travel from 5 terrorist hotbed countries?
Their job is to protect the American people. It's not their job to be politically correct to the point of danger.

They just proved that the law and Constitution are meaningless to them. They're just political hacks.


.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

Nah. Wait a few months. Nominations will be a breeze.

 

[pismoe]

Now, if Trump is smart -- I'll withhold comment on that -- He'll impose a quota on all immigration to the US to replacement levels only.

We cannot afford to continue at over 1 million immigrants a year. It will destroy our infrastructure and bankrupt us even faster than the left is doing now.

The highest immigration should be set to be a replacement for population losses or 200k, whichever is less.

--------------------------------------- but replacement level and whats the number to start at and who are the people doing the replacing . Should only be WESTERN First Worlders doing the replacing , imo Darkwind .

 

[Darkwind]

Now, if Trump is smart -- I'll withhold comment on that -- He'll impose a quota on all immigration to the US to replacement levels only.

We cannot afford to continue at over 1 million immigrants a year. It will destroy our infrastructure and bankrupt us even faster than the left is doing now.

The highest immigration should be set to be a replacement for population losses or 200k, whichever is less.

--------------------------------------- but replacement level and whats the number to start at and who are the people doing the replacing . Should only be WESTERN First Worlders doing the replacing , imo Darkwind .

Well, that is something that can be debated. I personally don't care where they come from, as long as they meet a merit standard. One of the main staples of any immigration policy is that is should be set on first, need; second, merit.

What I do know is at the present time, the US is growing at 1.4m people per year if you remove the 900k immigrants we've had over the past year.

We have no need for immigration at this time.

 

[pismoe]

My problem is with nonwesterners , say people that practice 'shariah law' or third worlders that think that the USA or parts of the USA belong to 'mexico' . As regards numbers , we have 310 million plus millions of illegals at the 2010 census . I do not like such a crowded USA if its only because of traffic congestion . As i always ask rhetorically , with 310 million plus millions of illegal aliens , why does the USA need more imported people ??

 

[Maxdeath]

The left wanted to make it into a Muslim ban when in fact it was just another travel ban similar to the bans of past administrations.
No one targeted a religon they targeted places that did not or could not properly vet.

The first attempt was a muslim bsn in that non-muslims from those countries would be given special consideration.

You over simplified that. It stated that it would give priority to those who were a religious minority. That was in relation to claims for amnesty. Hard to claim you are wanting amnesty on religious grounds if you are part of the major religon of the area. Even if we claim that it was a ban on a religon, what about the rest?

 

[Flash]

Now, if Trump is smart -- I'll withhold comment on that -- He'll impose a quota on all immigration to the US to replacement levels only.

We cannot afford to continue at over 1 million immigrants a year. It will destroy our infrastructure and bankrupt us even faster than the left is doing now.

The highest immigration should be set to be a replacement for population losses or 200k, whichever is less.

With 330 million Americans we need to close the US to general immigration. We have enough people already.

We should only allow immigration to accommodate legitimate marriages and adoptions. Maybe a thousand or so slots for the really high achievers and job producers.

Certainly no more Mexicans, Central Americans, Muslims or Africans. We have enough of those already. In fact we should start rounding up all the Illegals and send them back. We may not get all of them but we can get a bunch of them.

 

[OKTexas]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

Why do you think the filibusterer was eliminated on nominations? And yes that's exactly what we are coming to. Just look at the way the commiecrats are obstructing every nomination Trump has made and they aren't even the majority, so don't pretend your side is above it all.


.

 

[Gracie]

There is an influx of home invasions, robberies, rapes, theft in your neighborhood. Do you lock your doors at night and when you go to work?
Trump just locked the door. Good.

 

[Flash]

Today was a great example of the difference between Conservatives and those filthy Liberals.

The Conservatives found on the basis of the law. The President was acting in accordance with the law. Those Liberal nitwits based their decision on what Trump said as a candidate. How dumb is that? It is like the four Moon Bat Liberals on the court learned nothing in law school or didn't care what the law was.

That asshole Sotomayor equated this case with the decision that allowed FDR to imprison the Japanese Americans. How stupid and confused is that? There is no comparison between locking Americans up in a concentration camp and controlling immigration. Any Moon Bat that voted for that shithead Obama, who appointed Sotomayor to the court, was an idiot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

Why do you think the filibusterer was eliminated on nominations? And yes that's exactly what we are coming to. Just look at the way the commiecrats are obstructing every nomination Trump has made and they aren't even the majority, so don't pretend your side is above it all.


.

My side does not have a single seat in congress, so you can keep the blame to your side and the other side, mine has nothing to do with it

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

Nah. Wait a few months. Nominations will be a breeze.

Any day now!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

----------------- imo , yeah probably but in my opinion the whole thing is falling apart anyway so doesn't make much difference GGator .

That last part I cannot disagree with at all. It has been a fun ride, but all great things come to an end and our country cannot exist without compromise, it was built on it and it is an integral part of the way the government was designed.

 

[OKTexas]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

Why do you think the filibusterer was eliminated on nominations? And yes that's exactly what we are coming to. Just look at the way the commiecrats are obstructing every nomination Trump has made and they aren't even the majority, so don't pretend your side is above it all.


.

My side does not have a single seat in congress, so you can keep the blame to your side and the other side, mine has nothing to do with it

Of course you have a side or you wouldn't be here. But the court used the four corners doctrine on this decision, meaning nothing in the executive order violated the law or presidential authority in any manner. Everyone can cry about the new justice and what Trump said, but the court went by what he did, and it was in full compliance with the law.


.

 

[OKTexas]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

----------------- imo , yeah probably but in my opinion the whole thing is falling apart anyway so doesn't make much difference GGator .

That last part I cannot disagree with at all. It has been a fun ride, but all great things come to an end and our country cannot exist without compromise, it was built on it and it is an integral part of the way the government was designed.

Look at the rhetoric the left is using right now, they are painting republicans as pure evil nazis, how can you justify giving an inch to people like that? Their base has bought into this crap, they and the media would crucify the politicians that made deals with the devil. So tell the class, how do they get themselves out of the corner they painted themselves into?


.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim Travel Ban is a direct consequence of Congressional Republicans unethically and illegally refusing to hold a confirmation hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. We need to vote them all out in November." - Crazy Bernie

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

----------------- imo , yeah probably but in my opinion the whole thing is falling apart anyway so doesn't make much difference GGator .

That last part I cannot disagree with at all. It has been a fun ride, but all great things come to an end and our country cannot exist without compromise, it was built on it and it is an integral part of the way the government was designed.

Look at the rhetoric the left is using right now, they are painting republicans as pure evil nazis, how can you justify giving an inch to people like that? Their base has bought into this crap, they and the media would crucify the politicians that made deals with the devil. So tell the class, how do they get themselves out of the corner they painted themselves into?


.

Is it any different than the rhetoric the people on the right on this forum are using?

 

[OKTexas]

Illegal, how so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate can't withhold consent on a nomination or they must schedule hearings.


.

So, then why should any Senate controlled by the opposition party ever consider any nominee for anything?

Is that what we are going to come to?

----------------- imo , yeah probably but in my opinion the whole thing is falling apart anyway so doesn't make much difference GGator .

That last part I cannot disagree with at all. It has been a fun ride, but all great things come to an end and our country cannot exist without compromise, it was built on it and it is an integral part of the way the government was designed.

Look at the rhetoric the left is using right now, they are painting republicans as pure evil nazis, how can you justify giving an inch to people like that? Their base has bought into this crap, they and the media would crucify the politicians that made deals with the devil. So tell the class, how do they get themselves out of the corner they painted themselves into?


.

Is it any different than the rhetoric the people on the right on this forum are using?

I don't recall anyone on the republican side telling people to say out of the public square or they will be stalked and harassed. How about you?


.

 

[basquebromance]

Very happy with the Supreme Court decisión. Anybody that does not agree should listen more to what Europeans are saying at this time

 

[Crepitus]

Any questions?


Supreme Court upholds President Trump's controversial travel ban - USA TODAY Supreme Court upholds President Trump's controversial travel ban — USA TODAY

Gorsuch is doing more damage to this country that tRump can.

Yeah, well a handful of KY Jelly slathered in your ass crack might help you get over it.

So, you like old guys with greasy ass cracks? You're a perverted little pin-head aren't ya.

 

[Crepitus]

Any questions?


Supreme Court upholds President Trump's controversial travel ban - USA TODAY Supreme Court upholds President Trump's controversial travel ban — USA TODAY

Gorsuch is doing more damage to this country that tRump can.

Hold that whine for a bit will ya? Trump will get two more picks. I want that whine full blast

Lol, you think tRump has the brains to pick any? Gorsuch was bannons. Cheeto Jesus is too busy twittering or whatever.