Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: Not going to the Supreme Court, Rump gives up

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Black Guy View Post
    Nothing in the Constitution prohibits banning a religion from immigrating.

    Nothing.
    Sure it does. Section one of the 14th amendment protects anyone from such discrimination not just citizens.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    You seem to think "radical Islam" is something that we should embrace.
    meh...it's not like they're Catholics.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    If he does what he originally wanted to do, ban all Muslims from entering the country, the Supreme Court will stop him
    Oh I see....you MEANT to lie about what he wanted to do....

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    But it's intent was about religion so try again Yurt.
    Mott has become a lying liberal....shame, I remember when he was neutral....
    Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 02-17-2017 at 07:31 AM.

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Sure it does. Section one of the 14th amendment protects anyone from such discrimination not just citizens.
    Are we extending the Constitution to cover the entire world now?.....isn't that rather imperialistic?
    Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 02-17-2017 at 07:31 AM.

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    still would like this to reach sc.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    If they make it super black and white again that this is a ban based on a religious test then that too will fail constitutional scrutiny. For a EO to be legal it has to have a sound legal precedent to be enforced. Otherwise, as in this case, the courts will throw it out. This means that the Executive branch will have to elaborate a specific national security interest for said EO to be legal.

    Is that possible? I'm certain it is but it can't be done on an unconstitutional religious test.
    45 claimed the new EO would be about super vetting.

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    I predict that no matter how the new EO comes out it will be challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds that the legislative intent is to ban muslims. In which case you will have to go to the supreme court anyway.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    The first EO did not mention religion.

    Why do lefties lie as much as Trump and then whine about his lying?
    No, not in so many words, but as you know judges in these matters look at intent, Trumps words during the campaign showed the intent.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Phantasmal For This Post:

    ZappasGuitar (02-17-2017)

  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Snowflake View Post
    No, not in so many words, but as you know judges in these matters look at intent, Trumpsxwords duringk the campaign showed the intent.
    so the eo was perfectly fine in form and any eo he makes will still face the same hurdle. The challenge lies in the ability of judges to get intent outside of the four corners of the law hence it should go to the SC.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to tsuke For This Post:

    Cancel 2018.2 (02-17-2017)

  13. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    meh...it's not like they're Catholics.
    Nice dodge. I figured you as a Honda guy.

  14. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    I predict that no matter how the new EO comes out it will be challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds that the legislative intent is to ban muslims. In which case you will have to go to the supreme court anyway.
    It's likely to be challenged. I know you, Trump and that fool Miller are deeply offended that anyone would question the President's authority, but that is known to happen in our country. Maybe Russia would be more to your liking.

    If he has a legitimate national security interest and provides for due process then I doubt it will make it to the Supreme Court.
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  15. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    The first EO did not mention religion.

    Why do lefties lie as much as Trump and then whine about his lying?
    It does mention religion.


    Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

    Do you want to alter your claim? Did you mean that it does not mention a specific religion?
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Timshel For This Post:

    Phantasmal (02-17-2017)

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick from the Internet View Post
    It does mention religion.


    Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

    Do you want to alter your claim? Did you mean that it does not mention a specific religion?
    lol.....mentions it in exactly the opposite way that lying liberals claim it was mentioned?.......you do like looking like an idiot don't you........

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick from the Internet View Post
    It's likely to be challenged. I know you, Trump and that fool Miller are deeply offended that anyone would question the President's authority, but that is known to happen in our country. Maybe Russia would be more to your liking.

    If he has a legitimate national security interest and provides for due process then I doubt it will make it to the Supreme Court.
    it does not matter if he had a legit concern as the intent comes from the statements in the campaign. Even if Iran were to declare death to america it would still not cancel out the fact that it can be challenged by the logic of the 9th.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

Similar Threads

  1. APP - It is all about the Supreme Court
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 09:47 AM
  2. We Will Not Have A Supreme Court
    By gui1tars in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-18-2012, 09:49 AM
  3. The Supreme Court!
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-08-2012, 12:15 PM
  4. another supreme court failure
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-19-2011, 11:20 AM
  5. Supreme Court
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 07:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •