• 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

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...

But, of course, they weren't actually doing that, and Trump had to change the ban what, three times?

How weird it must be to have to pretend those rulings were somehow, magically, 'anti-American'.
 
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...

Best post I've read all morning...

:applaud
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seemed as though you were saying that one need not look further than the president is regulating immigration to determine that it's constitutional, when it is a bit more of a searching inquiry than that. Because there are definitely ways the President can regulate immigration that would be unconstitutional and plenty of ways that would be unlawful if they contradicted the INA. I apologize if I misunderstood that point.
 
MTAtech said:
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.
Click to expand...

You act as if that's a new thing what McConnel did, it has happened before, and I'd say thank goodness.
 
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...

I want to, but I don't feel sorry for them at all.
They bring all this anti-American misery onto themselves.
 
Polar Bum said:
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.
Click to expand...

The main reason I wanted Trump to beat Hillary was because I knew the SC needed to go to the right.
 
Renae said:
You act as if that's a new thing what McConnel did, it has happened before, and I'd say thank goodness.
Click to expand...

Eh. I'd prefer Gorsuch to Garland in a vacuum, but I think the precedent is going to come back to hurt us long-term. If the Democrats win back the Senate in 2018, which they have a non-zero chance of doing, it's going to be very hard to argue that Trump should get to replace Kennedy if he retires next term or any other justice if they retire/die before the 2020 election. And if we get to the point where a president basically can't successfully appoint a SCOTUS justice unless his party has control of the Senate, I don't think that's a good thing at all.
 
American said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html





The premise from opponents has been found to be wholely ungrounded.
Click to expand...

The premise that this was a Muslim ban was asinine and totally lacking common sense. All one has to do is be a bit good at math. There are around 50, give or take Muslim countries in this world of ours. Trump banned six which were exporting terrorism. Six out of 50 isn't a Muslim ban. If it were a Muslim ban, Trump would have had to ban everyone from all 50 or at least most. To portray this as a Muslim ban, one must have flunked math back in elementary school.

The numbers speak for themselves.
 
Amelia said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what "they" should do then... Go some place less "hostile." :mrgreen:
 
Perotista said:
The premise that this was a Muslim ban was asinine and totally lacking common sense. All one has to do is be a bit good at math. There are around 50, give or take Muslim countries in this world of ours. Trump banned six which were exporting terrorism. Six out of 50 isn't a Muslim ban. If it were a Muslim ban, Trump would have had to ban everyone from all 50 or at least most. To portray this as a Muslim ban, one must have flunked math back in elementary school.

The numbers speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

This decision was a reaffirmation of the President's broad authority over immigration.
 
Anagram said:
Eh. I'd prefer Gorsuch to Garland in a vacuum, but I think the precedent is going to come back to hurt us long-term. If the Democrats win back the Senate in 2018, which they have a non-zero chance of doing, it's going to be very hard to argue that Trump should get to replace Kennedy if he retires next term or any other justice if they retire/die before the 2020 election. And if we get to the point where a president basically can't successfully appoint a SCOTUS justice unless his party has control of the Senate, I don't think that's a good thing at all.
Click to expand...

I agree that these fights have consequences, but the GOP has been stewing over the treatment of GOP nominees for SCOTUS for a while. Bork, Clarence Thomas...
 
trixare4kids said:
The main reason I wanted Trump to beat Hillary was because I knew the SC needed to go to the right.
Click to expand...

When Reid did it in 2013, even Chuck Schumacher warned him against doing so...he envisioned this exact situation where using the "nuclear option" would come back on them if the Republicans came back into power.

Well, for the Democrats, that chicken came home to roost with a vengeance.
 
late said:
BS.

And in the process of cheating they snubbed a good candidate to place a kook on the bench.
Click to expand...
Is this the same kook who sided with the liberals on the latest 4th amendment ruling?
 
Renae said:
I agree that these fights have consequences, but the GOP has been stewing over the treatment of GOP nominees for SCOTUS for a while. Bork, Clarence Thomas...
Click to expand...

And none of those fights were good either IMO. Democrats would have probably come to regret those if they didn't have such strong majorities when Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were nominated. My personal opinion is that all judicial and cabinet nominees should be confirmed unless grossly unqualified in a way that nominees like Bork and Garland weren't.
 
Anagram said:
Eh. I'd prefer Gorsuch to Garland in a vacuum, but I think the precedent is going to come back to hurt us long-term. If the Democrats win back the Senate in 2018, which they have a non-zero chance of doing, it's going to be very hard to argue that Trump should get to replace Kennedy if he retires next term or any other justice if they retire/die before the 2020 election. And if we get to the point where a president basically can't successfully appoint a SCOTUS justice unless his party has control of the Senate, I don't think that's a good thing at all.
Click to expand...

Given the map, I don't think we will have to worry about that precedent just yet. It's far more likely that a swing court, if you will, will be replaced by an ideologically dominant court.
 
Fiddytree said:
Given the map, I don't think we will have to worry about that precedent just yet. It's far more likely that a swing court, if you will, will be replaced by an ideologically dominant court.
Click to expand...

Unlikely for sure. I think at least a couple of Donnelly, Nelson, McCaskill, Tester, Manchin, Heitkamp loses. But at the same time, I don't see individual among them as an underdog, and NV and AZ look more and more Democratic leaning. Plus Bredesen is holding up in Tennessee. I've been seeing a Democratic path that's much stronger lately.

And if it does happen, it's seems at least even odds there's a SCOTUS vacancy before 2020.
 
American said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html





The premise from opponents has been found to be wholely ungrounded.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. When the initial ban included travelers from seven countries listed as dangerous by the Obama Administration, it was not only prudent, but entirely rational. To say that it was a Muslim ban is ridiculous then there were 45 other predominantly Muslim countries who were not included in the ban. It isn't the President's fault that the people presenting the most danger to our national security these days are from a handful of countries that are predominantly Muslim.
 
Fiddytree said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would simple to divide the districts in a non partisan non bias manner but neither party wants that. They want the lines drawn in favorable ways to themselves.

If they wanted to drawn unbiased districts all they would need to do is draw straight lines through the state creating a grid of equally populated districts without regard to what demographic group it may segregate, include, or divide. Neither party wants that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Renae said:
You act as if that's a new thing what McConnel did, it has happened before, and I'd say thank goodness.
Click to expand...

Just remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You'd be calling it an abuse of power.
 
MTAtech said:
Just remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You'd be calling it an abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Not really. It was a tactic, one that had a risk if Hillary won, she didn't. It was a good gamble.
 
trouble13 said:
It would simple to divide the districts in a non partisan non bias manner but neither party wants that. They want the lines drawn in favorable ways to themselves.

If they wanted to drawn unbiased districts all they would need to do is draw straight lines through the state creating a grid of equally populated districts without regard to what demographic group it may segregate, include, or divide. Neither party wants that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That sounds simple in theory, but non-biased manner is much harder to define and harder to accomplish.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, they weren't actually doing that, and Trump had to change the ban what, three times?

How weird it must be to have to pretend those rulings were somehow, magically, 'anti-American'.
Click to expand...

The previous rulings were made due to campaign rhetoric and saying Trump was targeting Muslims due to what was said during the campaign and not by reviewing presidential authority. I believe the rulings were political in nature given they were based on "Trump hates Muslims" and as a result put politics over American national security. In my boat that's anti American
 
digsbe said:
The previous rulings were made due to campaign rhetoric and saying Trump was targeting Muslims due to what was said during the campaign and not by reviewing presidential authority. I believe the rulings were political in nature given they were based on "Trump hates Muslims" and as a result put politics over American national security. In my boat that's anti American
Click to expand...

Yup. This ruling returned the matter to a question of law rather than anti-Trump virtue signaling.
 
late said:
Actually, no.

All that tells us is that Republicans cheat.
Click to expand...

You're the kid who always yelled "CHEATER!" when you lost fair-and-square at a kickball game, aren't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom