White house asks SC to allow travel ban

[miketx]

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

You love illegals. You love muslims. You love sick fags at elementary schools. You love unemployment. You love theft by taxes. You love perversion. You hate Americans.

Nope. You're wrong.

You've already been proven a liar.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

It stops what from coming in? Where is your proof of that? Terrorists are not as stupid as you think. If they are coming into this country, they will find a way around it.

With scum like you helping, I'm sure they will.

Come on mikey. Why you gotta be so fussy?

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

You love illegals. You love muslims. You love sick fags at elementary schools. You love unemployment. You love theft by taxes. You love perversion. You hate Americans.

Nope. You're wrong.

You've already been proven a liar.

When?

 

[OKTexas]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

They are.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history | TravelWireNews

.

 

[TNHarley]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

They are.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history | TravelWireNews

.

Thanks TX

 

[OKTexas]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

They are.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history | TravelWireNews

.

Thanks TX

Your welcome, but the point, as you put it, is to uphold the powers of the president when it comes to national security.

.

 

[Timmy]

Hopefully the SC will uphold President Trump's travel ban. It is well within his powers.

None of the lower court judges have ever identified how the travel ban "makes a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for any U.C citizen or person under U.S. jurisdiction. And most of their objections seem to amount to "That makes things hard on people", as though that somehow reduced the President's powers under US law.

It's as though the President tried to ban travel into the U.S. for anyone from Sweden, and some judge announced that this was an unconstitutionally racist ban on white people entering, despite the fact that it also banned blacks from Norway, Indians, Hispanics etc. who are also citizens of Norway.

Lol! Playa please!

After this Manchester thing the righties came out saying "see trump was right to ban them".

Couldn't hide your racists selves could you .

 

[miketx]

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

Did the check for that wall show up yet?

You love illegals. You love muslims. You love sick fags at elementary schools. You love unemployment. You love theft by taxes. You love perversion. You hate Americans.

Nope. You're wrong.

You've already been proven a liar.

When?

Every post.

 

[debbiedowner]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

 

[OKTexas]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

 

[RightyTighty]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

They take what they want. We'll see (but it's likely).

 

[OKTexas]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

They take what they want. We'll see (but it's likely).

I don't see how they refuse.

.

 

[RightyTighty]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

They take what they want. We'll see (but it's likely).

I don't see how they refuse.

.

Easy, only three vote for it.

 

[busybee01]

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Fact? You have no facts about anything! What the hell are you talking about?

I guess it has to be explained to morons like you. If you look at the countries of origin of terrorist attacks in the US, maybe 1 would have been stopped. The 9/11 bombers came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Maj Hassan was a American citizen. The Florida nightclub shooter was a American citizen. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Eastern Europe. None of the countries mentioned in Trump's travel ban.

The ban stops more from coming in. We need it and will get it in spite of traitors like you that want to bring more hurt to Americans. Plus, it shows that we have leaders that don't pucker up ans kiss every ass they see like our former scum in the WH did.

It stops what from coming in? Where is your proof of that? Terrorists are not as stupid as you think. If they are coming into this country, they will find a way around it.

With scum like you helping, I'm sure they will.

You are the only scumbag that I see. Apparently discussing fact is not something you employ much.

 

[busybee01]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

They are.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history | TravelWireNews

.

Thanks TX

Your welcome, but the point, as you put it, is to uphold the powers of the president when it comes to national security.

.

I would hope the courts would uphold the idea of judicial oversight when it is required. What happened to Japanese-Americans was a war crime. The courts should have stepped in and stopped this.

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

There is also no pressing reason for them to act either. There is no proof that a delay would cause any harm.

 

[OKTexas]

I was for it but now im wondering "whats the point?"
He wanted 3 months so he could figure out how to vet the unvettable. Why didn't he work on it when the first one failed?

They are.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

New form “requests” US visa applicants’ social media accounts, handles, history | TravelWireNews

.

Thanks TX

Your welcome, but the point, as you put it, is to uphold the powers of the president when it comes to national security.

.

I would hope the courts would uphold the idea of judicial oversight when it is required. What happened to Japanese-Americans was a war crime. The courts should have stepped in and stopped this.

I think the Court will pass on this without prejudice. They could allow it to work its way through the courts before deciding whether to take the case. Usually the Supreme Court only intervenes when it is proven that immediate harm will come unless they act. A death row appeal would be a example. There is no evidence that harm will come if the Supreme Court does not act. The fact is that at most 1 attack would have been stopped if Trump's order had been in effect.

Yea, I thought they haven't even agreed yet if they will hear the case.

They will, they have to because it concerns the courts interfering with a constitutional and statutory power of the president. It's not a topic they can pass on.

.

There is also no pressing reason for them to act either. There is no proof that a delay would cause any harm.

Read the law and put the emotions aside. Do you really want the courts to have the power to set aside a constitutional and statutorily correct decision because some special interest group takes exception to it? You may agree with the decision next time, but once the precedent is set, it's set.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

.