Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS Rules for Trump!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS Rules for Trump!

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries.

    The 5-4 ruling, with the court's five conservatives in the majority, ends for now a fierce fight in the courts over whether the policy represented an unlawful Muslim ban. Trump can now claim vindication after lower courts had blocked his travel ban announced in September, as well as two prior versions, in legal challenges brought by the state of Hawaii and others.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...cid=spartandhp
    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

  • #2
    Outstanding!
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      A smack down for the Left. Seeing as how all but one of the Judges involved in ruling against Trump are Obama appointees, this is a smackdown for the Left. You can't rule against something just because you don't like it.

      In an unrelated bit, Justice Sotomeyer in a Texas redistricting case made one of the most inane statements in dissenting about the ruling I've ever read:

      It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population of the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process.
      "Minority voters" are a "majority?" Yea, that makes sense... If they're a majority how are they "underrepresented?" Wouldn't they automatically be represented in proportion to their numbers?

      The only way Sotomeyer's statements make sense is if you add racism and bigotry to them... eg.,

      …minority race voters in Texas--despite constituting a majority of the population of the State...

      That is to say, that there should be special effort made to create minority districts within the state to ensure minorities, by race, get representation in Congress. After all, if this doesn't happen, they won't be represented if say some White person is elected to represent them. Yep, Sotomeyer is a bigot, racist, and idiot.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
        The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries.

        The 5-4 ruling, with the court's five conservatives in the majority, ends for now a fierce fight in the courts over whether the policy represented an unlawful Muslim ban. Trump can now claim vindication after lower courts had blocked his travel ban announced in September, as well as two prior versions, in legal challenges brought by the state of Hawaii and others.
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...cid=spartandhp
        you really cant claim vindication in a 5 to 4 ruling. He can claim he can do it.

        btw happen to have the link to the scotus ruling

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by craven View Post

          you really cant claim vindication in a 5 to 4 ruling. He can claim he can do it.

          btw happen to have the link to the scotus ruling
          Why? If the ruling went the other way that's what the anti-Trumper's would be shouting from the rooftops...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            A smack down for the Left. Seeing as how all but one of the Judges involved in ruling against Trump are Obama appointees, this is a smackdown for the Left. You can't rule against something just because you don't like it.

            In an unrelated bit, Justice Sotomeyer in a Texas redistricting case made one of the most inane statements in dissenting about the ruling I've ever read:



            "Minority voters" are a "majority?" Yea, that makes sense... If they're a majority how are they "underrepresented?" Wouldn't they automatically be represented in proportion to their numbers?

            The only way Sotomeyer's statements make sense is if you add racism and bigotry to them... eg.,

            …minority race voters in Texas--despite constituting a majority of the population of the State...

            That is to say, that there should be special effort made to create minority districts within the state to ensure minorities, by race, get representation in Congress. After all, if this doesn't happen, they won't be represented if say some White person is elected to represent them. Yep, Sotomeyer is a bigot, racist, and idiot.
            never heard the word Gerrymandering before have ya. With todays analytic you can make blue states red and red states blue.

            Hell where I live they gave me a US rep that has now clue to our life on this side of the state just to make it a republican seat.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Why? If the ruling went the other way that's what the anti-Trumper's would be shouting from the rooftops...
              um your forget who your responding to and tossing me in with them. Notice I was the one who pointed to specifics of the last case we discussed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                never heard the word Gerrymandering before have ya. With todays analytic you can make blue states red and red states blue.

                Hell where I live they gave me a US rep that has now clue to our life on this side of the state just to make it a republican seat.
                Yes, Gerrymandering districts to create a "Black" district, or a "Hispanic" district. I'd bet they'd try to create gay and women's districts if they could find the numbers...

                So, which is worse? The parties creating some "safe" districts for their party, or a party creating voter ghettos for minorities because otherwise they somehow wouldn't be "represented?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  you really cant claim vindication in a 5 to 4 ruling. He can claim he can do it.

                  btw happen to have the link to the scotus ruling
                  If you read my post you would have seen the link.
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    you really cant claim vindication in a 5 to 4 ruling. He can claim he can do it.

                    btw happen to have the link to the scotus ruling
                    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1436_l6hc.pdf

                    It is a vindication of the president's legal authority to enact the ban and a smack down on all the 9th Circuit judges who tried to usurp that authority.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      A smack down for the Left. Seeing as how all but one of the Judges involved in ruling against Trump are Obama appointees, this is a smackdown for the Left. You can't rule against something just because you don't like it.

                      In an unrelated bit, Justice Sotomeyer in a Texas redistricting case made one of the most inane statements in dissenting about the ruling I've ever read:



                      "Minority voters" are a "majority?" Yea, that makes sense... If they're a majority how are they "underrepresented?" Wouldn't they automatically be represented in proportion to their numbers?

                      The only way Sotomeyer's statements make sense is if you add racism and bigotry to them... eg.,

                      …minority race voters in Texas--despite constituting a majority of the population of the State...

                      That is to say, that there should be special effort made to create minority districts within the state to ensure minorities, by race, get representation in Congress. After all, if this doesn't happen, they won't be represented if say some White person is elected to represent them. Yep, Sotomeyer is a bigot, racist, and idiot.
                      Sotomayor is consistently an idiot and frequently says inane things.
                      She seems to think that her feelings are relevant to an analysis of what the law says.
                      They aren't.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wasn't this at least the third version of the 'travel ban'? And if the countries included hadn't been changed to include North Korea and Venzuela, it would not have passed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Excellent. This also opens the door to enforcing other presidential actions the lower courts have interfered with.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A slam dunk. Since the other 4 would not likely honor their oaths, this is an unanimous decision!
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                              Sotomayor is consistently an idiot and frequently says inane things.
                              She seems to think that her feelings are relevant to an analysis of what the law says.
                              They aren't.
                              She's a Leftist. Her feelings are more important than what the law as written says.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X