• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

Man,...Trump was right. All this winning is getting to be too much.


I almost feel sorry for our liberal counterparts who, once again, are licking their wounds.
 
notquiteright said:
5-4 isn't wholly anything... Math still count even if it doesn't for Trump and his supporters... :peace
Click to expand...

It means that The Supreme Court confirmed that the president has the authority to regulate immigration.
 
JANFU said:
5 to 4 decision. Previous bans thrown or, redone, rewritten as it would not pass SCOTUS. Clear that when the adults were called upon after the fiascos to write the bill, it was changed drastically from the first couple of Muslim bans. Compare the original to this one.
Click to expand...

The president has the authority to regulate immigration. It's that simple.
 
At least the Supreme Court is equal of judges. I don’t like how some people who might judge based on Religion or whatever. The Supreme Court should not have any political play into their ruling. What do I mean? I mean is if I was a judge I’m going to be looking for key support that trump administration will support. It doesn’t matter if I’m a democrat or republican because if the Justice judges rule based on feelings. What’s the point? Give me a break! He came out after San Bernardino was attacked. But, the democrats are blind


Can’t censor this Patriot
 
apdst said:
The president has the authority to regulate immigration. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple. For instance, the Court makes it pretty clear that if Trump had written an order that on its face banned all muslims from entering the country it would be unconstitutional.

It is clear that the INA does give the president extraordinary in suspending individual or groups of aliens from entry, but it shouldn't be interpreted as unlimited.
 
dobieg said:
Man,...Trump was right. All this winning is getting to be too much.


I almost feel sorry for our liberal counterparts who, once again, are licking their wounds.
Click to expand...
They must be exhausted from all their meltdowns.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Rogue Valley said:
Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

The 5 conservative judges on the SCOTUS bench also saw nothing wrong with Texas gerrymandering intended to disenfranchise black citizens.

Supreme Court Is Cool With Texas-Style Apartheid
Click to expand...

The thing with gerrymandering is, it's too damn complicated and there's no clear-cut proposal from opponents on how you correctly create districts. The thing they can all agree on is that partisan-racial gerrymandering is bad. After that, and you get into a debate about whether or not racial issues are inseparable from partisan issues, with a segment of racial minorities saying that what benefits the Democratic Party is not necessarily what benefits racial minorities.
 
Last edited:
Polar Bum said:
Hardly cheating.....it was a procedural maneuver; the same one used by Harry Reid in 2013.
Click to expand...

BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
 
Great! The notion that America shouldn't have a religious litmus test for immigrants is for cucks.
 
digsbe said:
Glad they ruled correctly. The judges legislating from the bench denying this in previous law suits should be called out for their anti American foolishness.
Click to expand...

not unamerican rather unconstitutional foolishness.
 
late said:
BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
Click to expand...

Like it, don't like it...I don't care, and it does not change the current situation.

But I am not blind to what happened with Gorsuch's appointment....rail about it, cry, stomp your feet....I didn't like it any more than anyone else, but even I know it wasn't "cheating"....the Nuclear Option used in 2013 came back to haunt us in 2017.

Outmaneuvered and outgunned in parliamentary procedure.
 
Last edited:
At least the ban was prevented long enough to let people get their affairs in order after Trump's first ban pulled the rug out from under them.

People have now had fair warning to make arrangements to go somewhere which would be less hostile to them than the U.S. has become.
 
Rickeroo said:
I think it would have had a better chance if they concentrated on the race/ethnicity of the banned countries rather than the religion. Indonesia isn't banned, yet it is the largest Muslim country. We don't care that Indonesia is Muslim. It's something else besides religion that is the motivator.
Click to expand...

not really it wouldn't have been shot down on that either.
as there are many different race/ethnicity in those countries.
 
late said:
BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
Click to expand...

It's time to move on.

Concentrate on Kennedy and Ginsburg's continued involvement and health.
 
Taylor said:
Nice to see judges rule on the actual order for once, not what they imagined it being.
Click to expand...

yet 4 of them did which is why the court is so messed up.
 
We can not have anything that isn’t took over by political views


Can’t censor this Patriot
 
Renae said:
Well all it shows is that there are 4 activist judges that need to be countered at any cost on the court.
Click to expand...
Activism is in the eye of the beholder. When they do what your opponents want, they're activist. When the do what you want, they are following strictly following the constitution.

The fact that Mitch McConnell denied Obama his nominee the vote the constitution entitled is the results today.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Good ruling. The court did as they should, they ruled on the law and the facts, not political correctness and feelings.
Click to expand...

Refreshing isn't it. It gives one hope.
 
late said:
BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
Click to expand...



It must be a really helpless feeling knowing Ginsburg is hanging on by a thread and there's nothing Democrats can do to stop her replacement.
 
Anagram said:
It's not quite that simple. For instance, the Court makes it pretty clear that if Trump had written an order that on its face banned all muslims from entering the country it would be unconstitutional.

It is clear that the INA does give the president extraordinary in suspending individual or groups of aliens from entry, but it shouldn't be interpreted as unlimited.
Click to expand...

I said the court ruled that the president has the authority to regulate immigration. I never said anything about banning Muslims. The court upheld the law as it's written. So, in regards to regulating immigration it is that simple.
 
late said:
BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
Click to expand...

he isn't a kook. he is very much doing what a judge should do. Ruling based on the law not his feelings of what he thinks the law
should be.

that is what a judge does.

The law was very much on the side of the president. Too bad it took this far for the justice system to do it's job.
this should have been handled by the local court systems to stop it.

the problem is the politics of judges outweigh their oath to uphold the constitution.

judges do not have the right to change the constitutional nor do they have the power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom