Immigration Ban

[Atbone95]

 

There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.

It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.

It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

Read the quote from Trump. Also watch where Giuliani said Trump asked for a Muslim ban. Then read what I said about how this should go to court even if it winds up failing so Trump doesn't even think of prioritizing them based on religion, like he wants to do.

[Landlord]

There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.

 

 

How long did it take black people to legally be more than 3/5 human?

[Atbone95]

 

There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.

 

 

How long did it take black people to legally be more than 3/5 human?

 

Well, the 3/5 Compromise was passed in 1787.

 

It was formally repealed in 1868.

 

1868 - 1787 = 81 years. The more you know.

[Atbone95]

Speaking of, if you'd like to compare 81 years to 90 days... meh, I'd suggest you just find a better argument. Probably a rabbit hole there.

[Landlord]

Speaking of, if you'd like to compare 81 years to 90 days... meh, I'd suggest you just find a better argument. Probably a rabbit hole there.

 

 

Better or worse than the argument that, "This has been done before legally so that means it's fine"?

[Danny Bateman]

Giuliani's little oops made the intent behind the ban pretty clear. I'm no legal expert, but wouldn't intent be an important part of the battle in court? I'm not sure what the plaintiffs would have to prove in court to get the ban permanently overturned, but I'm glad Giuliani screwed up like that.

 

The overarching point is that it's incredibly unfortunate that Donald Trump, who's never faced any serious level of discrimination in life due to the fact that he was born into such wealth and status, is now using his power to discriminate against others. To discriminate against the disabled. To discriminate against 5 year old little girls and little boys by detaining them away from their parents. To discriminate against babies needing medical care here in the US.

 

Those fighting against the ban in court just punched Trump in the nose. He's not used to that. Let's see how he handles it.

 

Heads over to Twitter

 

s

 

Edit: Oh, and to Landlord's point, we've got critical thinking skills for a reason. Sometimes, legality =/= right. Pot is still a Substance I substance "with no currently accepted medical use" per the government, and that's incredibly stupid.

[Moiraine]

I wondered about intent too. I assumed it wouldn't matter.

[knapplc]

The bridge market is booming right now.

[knapplc]

No, I don't follow Keith Olbermann on the twitter. But this is funny.

 

[zoogs]

 

 

There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.

It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 

And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 

"This system violates the basic principle of American democracy -- the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country." (Johnson, Lyndon B., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1037-1040.)

 

President Johnson, speaking of the old country-of-origin immigration system rebuked and dismantled in 1965.

[NM11046]

Man, does he not comprehend that NOTHING a judge decrees from the bench is an "opinion" without basis?

[commando]

Man, does he not comprehend that NOTHING a judge decrees from the bench is an "opinion" without basis?

the opinions of this so called president wants to take the law out of law enforcement.

[zoogs]

Remember when Obama voiced mild disapproval of a SCOTUS decision and the Republican Party had a conniption over it?

 

Separation of powers. The Executive Branch is not there to interpret law. The two troubling incidents so far that I know of aren't even about monumental SCOTUS decisions -- one was the acting AG making a call on whether the EO was defensible, and the other is a court stay.

 

There are normal ways to express opposition to either of these things. Ways that are conscious of the different roles the branches are meant to play. The President can advocate; he does not dictate in all things.

[knapplc]

Man, does he not comprehend that NOTHING a judge decrees from the bench is an "opinion" without basis?

 

 

Trump has a point about this judge, who is probably some leftist wacko tree-hugger appointed by a Democrat and opposed by all of the Right-minded Republicans.

 

 

 

 

 

Or not...