Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Aeson]

Did you read anything else, or just that part that you cherry picked?

I've read the whole thing, and the dissent. I also understood both ... which you clearly do not. You claimed that only the "leftist" Justices cared about whether or not the ban was a ban on Muslims, and that the court had said that it's ok for Trump to ban Muslims for being Muslims. You further said the court didn't argue whether it was constitutional or not. You are obviously wrong about all 3 of your moronic assertions.

"We now decide whether the President had authority under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

Of course I "cherry picked' the parts of the decision and dissent which prove you wrong on all 3 counts, because they prove you wrong on all 3 counts, and my purpose was to show how you were wrong on all 3 counts. It doesn't matter what else was in there, you were wrong on all 3 counts.

[Kidlicious]

Which also means that they don't rule out that the EO is racist.
They just rule that the PotUS has the right to issue the EO (and the EO therefore is valid) no matter whether it is racist or not

They aren't supposed to base their decision on that kind of conjecture. Liberals do that though.

[Kidlicious]

Liberals: We have the right to harass people in public and at their homes for disagreeing with us.

Conservatives: And we have the right to make political ads showing you doing that.

Liberals: No!

[Proteus_MST]

Assume for arguments sake that Trump gave an EO to detain children separately from adults that cross the border illegally. Then a liberal judge ruled that he couldn't do that because it's racist. If in the decision the SCOTUS rules that the EO was constitutional based on the belief that he gave a bona fide reason then they would not be basing their decision on the issue of racism.

Which also means that they don't rule out that the EO is racist.
They just rule that the PotUS has the right to issue the EO (and the EO therefore is valid) no matter whether it is racist or not

[Kidlicious]

Assume for arguments sake that Trump gave an EO to detain children separately from adults that cross the border illegally. Then a liberal judge ruled that he couldn't do that because it's racist. If in the decision the SCOTUS rules that the EO was constitutional based on the belief that he gave a bona fide reason then they would not be basing their decision on the issue of racism.

[Kidlicious]

Your cherry picking skills are horrible btw.

[Kidlicious]

Did you read anything else, or just that part that you cherry picked?

[Aeson]

You need to read the decision. Again, twaddle. The Court never argued that it's constitutional on the basis that it's not a Muslim ban.

I'd tell you to read it again, but since it has many and big words that would be futile. Long story short ... 5 thought it is constitutional because it doesn't target Muslims for being Muslim, 4 thought it was unconstitutional because it targets Muslims for being Muslim.

DECISION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

IV A We now turn to plaintiffs’ claim that the Proclamation was issued for the unconstitutional purpose of excluding Muslims ... We therefore conclude that the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the exclusion of their relatives under the Establishment Clause ... But we limited our review to whether the Executive gave a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action

DISSENT: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../dissent7.html

By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another.

[Kidlicious]

Not what the case was about. But ignoring that, it was 5-4 so not very far off going the other way. If Obama’s pick had been given a chance it may have. Certainly not the ridiculous thing you are pretending it was.

You need to read the decision. Again, twaddle. The Court never argued that it's constitutional on the basis that it's not a Muslim ban.

[Aeson]

Did you really think SCOTUS was going to rule that the President can't ban people that are potentially dangerous? Really? Frickin twaddle.

Not what the case was about. But ignoring that, it was 5-4 so not very far off going the other way. If Obama’s pick had been given a chance it may have. Certainly not the ridiculous thing you are pretending it was.

[Dinner]

Trade wars are bad and only produce losers. That said Mexico and Canada together make up about 11.8% of the North American economy so they are a hell of a lot more dependent on the US than visa versa. Trump remains a ******** but the one silver lining that might come out this (which would depend on Trump being competent which he is not) is that eventually we might end up with a more comprehensive free trade agreement where carve outs from the early 1990's (things like dairy or softwood lumber or truck transport or even media holding rules outlawing foreigners) end up getting eliminated.

Now, a competent man, which excludes Trump, would have done this one at a time starting with China as it is the worst offender because taking on everyone all at once is just stupid.

[Uncle Sparky]

Dinesh D"Souza, who was just pardoned by Trump, exercised his 1st amendment rights by retweeting messages with #BurntheJews and #Bringbackslavery.

Real patriots force Red Hen restaurant to close.

Canadian retaliatory tariffs against US industries came into effect today.

[Kidlicious]

Did you really think SCOTUS was going to rule that the President can't ban people that are potentially dangerous? Really? Frickin twaddle.

[Kidlicious]

He wanted to. He promised he would. He claimed he did. He asked for help on how to make it legal. Then he waved his hands and said it was a "Travel Ban" ... and you and the 5 conservative Justices bent right over and assumed the position.

The President can ban people that might be dangerous and can't be vetted properly. This is not difficult. Those are the only Muslims that are banned. Why can't you leftists get anything?

[Berzerker]

all depends on who is in the WH