America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by frankj1. 30 replies replies.
Travel Ban Reversal...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Jun 2 2017, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
When the Supreme Court reverses the travel ban can they punish the other courts for being stupid..?? Huh
rfenst Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Jun 2 2017, 6:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
No.
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Jun 2 2017, 6:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Even if their decision was politically motivated instead of based on law..?? Huh
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Jun 3 2017, 1:12 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Well since the ban was only for 90 days and 120 days so the administration can figure out what the hell is going on they can just drop it now since presumably it was only temporary. Certainly they've fixed things since it would have already run its course.
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Jun 3 2017, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
That's not the point...Not talking
delta1 Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, Jun 3 2017, 12:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
Good thing none of those terrorists that Trump was trying to prevent coming into the US made it here...maybe the vetting that we've been doing before is extreme enough...


...gotta give Trump credit though...his controversial and legally stayed travel bans have had the desired effect...fewer people from those countries have come into the US, and slowdowns by the state dept., understaffed in the Trump administration, have contributed...more than one way to skin the doggy...
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 9:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Supreme Court reinstates da travel ban... As they should've.... ThumpUp
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
DrafterX wrote:
Supreme Court reinstates da travel ban... As they should've.... ThumpUp


Hold on. It was not a complete reinstatement and there is still uncertainty over the whole thing because the Court has not even heard the case yet.
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:01 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
teedubbya wrote:
Well since the ban was only for 90 days and 120 days so the administration can figure out what the hell is going on they can just drop it now since presumably it was only temporary. Certainly they've fixed things since it would have already run its course.


Certainly a strong argument against the ban- that it is moot.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
rfenst wrote:
Hold on. It was not a complete reinstatement and there is still uncertainty over the whole thing because the Court has not even heard the case yet.

true... but they probably will reinstate the entire thing... there's nothing unconstitutional about the law, only the way some activist judges have interpreted it based on other statements made by trump that they didn't like (even though there was nothing unconstitutional about what he said).... liberal judges trying to score points for the left... but it's a 2 headed dog and both ends bite... libs will have power again someday and every single thing they try to accomplish will be thwarted by conservative judges trying to score points for the right...
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I wonder frequently where drafter gets his news. He doesn't seem to understand a whole lot of what goes on in the world.

Supreme court agreed to hear the ban.

Supreme court allowed the ban to partially be in place while it is being heard (however individuals with some connection to the us... relatives, students.. Will not have the ban apply to them)

Supreme court won't hear it until Oct. As the travel ban is literally only a 90 day executive order, it will likely expire before a decision is made.

What did trump do in the past 100+ days anyway to put in place whatever solution he actually intended? Oh... nothing?... what an idiot.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
again, make sure you watch to see how much the next dem president can accomplish in the first 100 days... everything accomplishment they attempt will be shopped around to a conservative judge who finds part or all of it unconstitutional and it'll go on the backburner until the (conservative leaning) supreme court has time to hear it.... and good luck with that...

mark my words, it'll be a long time - likely decades, and maybe never - before any president accomplishes anything in their first 100 days...
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
opelmanta1900 wrote:
again, make sure you watch to see how much the next dem president can accomplish in the first 100 days... everything accomplishment they attempt will be shopped around to a conservative judge who finds part or all of it unconstitutional and it'll go on the backburner until the (conservative leaning) supreme court has time to hear it.... and good luck with that...

mark my words, it'll be a long time - likely decades, and maybe never - before any president accomplishes anything in their first 100 days...


The simple solution to all of this is a ban on ALL people who want to come in to the U.S, until they are properly vetted.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
rfenst wrote:
The simple solution to all of this is a ban on ALL people who want to come in to the U.S, until they are properly vetted.

simple yes, but certainly not good...

there's a reason the obama administration single out these particular countries as being of increased danger in regards to the people they export to us... whatever that intel was that obama used should be sufficient to show causation for enacting a travel ban against those countries... unless obama's intel was bad... guess the supreme court will figure that out...
tailgater Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185


Justice Thomas said it best when he said that our Nation's security is more important than temporary individual inconvenience.

This is only a small victory for Trump.
The lower courts could have adopted the same "limited" ban, with family etc. being admitted.
Instead they chose to make it a partisan issue rather than a legal one, as proven by the SC decision.
It's truly shameful.
tailgater Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
The simple solution to all of this is a ban on ALL people who want to come in to the U.S, until they are properly vetted.


That's why we frisk grandmothers and 4 year old kids at the airport.
Because it's "simple".
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 11:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Look at tail with his "SC decision" on something which hasn't been heard yet.... he's so far up trumps butt that he can see the future.
Abrignac Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
victor809 wrote:
Look at tail with his "SC decision" on something which hasn't been heard yet.... he's so far up trumps butt that he can see the future.



It's pretty sad that the President who is responsile for border security can't shut the borders down to prevent those who would do harm from entering.
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Justice Thomas said it best when he said that our Nation's security is more important than temporary individual inconvenience.



the man never utters a sound, and when he finally does, it's to say that Benjamin Franklin was stupid.

Anyway, it is true that the 90 days would pass, which may indicate current vetting works (I did say "may").

I also feel more concern about the multiple American born citizens going off on horrendous acts of terror, as they seem to be the most successful.
Speyside Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 12:44 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I would like to see Americans vetted who travel to countries with state sponsored terrorism ( is that the correct phrase? ). This probably would create a big upset, but to many atrocities have been commitee by these lone wolves, who became radicalized and went to the middle east for training.
elRopo Offline
#21 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 1:15 PM EST
Joined: 02-17-2014
Posts: 905
Its encouraging to see that some judges can actually read.

Congress makes laws.

Courts decide if laws can be applied legally as written under our constitution. Their job is not to devine the intent of the framers.

A law says what it says, nothing more. If you don't like what it says then change the law.
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Look at tail with his "SC decision" on something which hasn't been heard yet.... he's so far up trumps butt that he can see the future.


So they didn't decide to partially reinstate the ban?

And for the record, nowhere above did I say it was a good thing. Nor bad.
But you made your decision without any facts.
Again.
tailgater Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 1:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
elRopo wrote:
Its encouraging to see that some judges can actually read.

Congress makes laws.

Courts decide if laws can be applied legally as written under our constitution. Their job is not to devine the intent of the framers.

A law says what it says, nothing more. If you don't like what it says then change the law.


This.
delta1 Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 1:56 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
tailgater wrote:
Justice Thomas said it best when he said that our Nation's security is more important than temporary individual inconvenience.

This is only a small victory for Trump.
The lower courts could have adopted the same "limited" ban, with family etc. being admitted.
Instead they chose to make it a partisan issue rather than a legal one, as proven by the SC decision.
It's truly shameful.




...as if Thomas can talk...
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Words are important and mean things tail.

In this case using the word "decision " when talking about the supreme court means more than how you used it. a decision has not been made. They are allowing some of the ban to take effect while they wait to make their decision.

Using the wrong word at the wrong time may lead some individuals to think the supreme court has weighed in on it already.
teedubbya Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Abrignac wrote:
It's pretty sad that the President who is responsile for border security can't shut the borders down to prevent those who would do harm from entering.



I'm actually pretty comfortable with separation of powers and giving very little unilateral power to one man, even in instances when I agree with them. Obama or Trump, thank god our founding fathers were smart.
tailgater Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 3:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Words are important and mean things tail.

In this case using the word "decision " when talking about the supreme court means more than how you used it. a decision has not been made. They are allowing some of the ban to take effect while they wait to make their decision.

Using the wrong word at the wrong time may lead some individuals to think the supreme court has weighed in on it already.


I know what you're saying, but when speaking (typing) about what transpired the wording becomes awkward when trying to avoid the term "decision" in my first post.
I wasn't trying to use legalese. Quite the opposite.
And the term does have meaning outside the court. Which is where I preside.


opelmanta1900 Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 3:38 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Legalese sounds like what you'd get if a lawyer fornicated with a maltese..
tailgater Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 3:44 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The maltese would have to be on top.
Because, you know. lawyers can only f*ck up.
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Jun 26 2017, 3:58 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I like where this is going
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top