Current Events > Court upholds ruling AGAIN that Trump's travel ban isn't happening

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40252724

Will he just keep trying? LOL

Winning
---

Also I remember people like gojak guaranteeing this would pass and that he would tag the doubters to laugh at later. I tagged him soon after.
---

ArchiePeck posted...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40252724

Will he just keep trying? LOL

This is actually very important.

Historically if a bunch of lower courts all start ruling the same way the supreme court will go that way too, they rarely say "4 different district courts have ruled for X, but we will go for Y"
---

Why would he stop? He hasn't stopped trying to build the stupid wall.
---

Good news.
---

All I do is win win win no matter what
---

The travel ban is actually the only thing I've agreed with him on but at this point, I'd rather watch him keep losing than get a half measure policy that I only sort-of-kind-of agree with.
---

Hahahahahaha if he spends four years trying to get the travel ban, the wall and the AHCA to happen I will just laugh.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

The travel ban is actually the only thing I've agreed with him on

LMAO

So you agree with ignoring the constitution? wow

Bullet_Wing posted...

I'm highly doubtful the Supreme Court will even take this. They can just choose to pass, after all

given how toxic this is, it'd be a wise move to pass....
---

Trump is the sort of guy to grab his own nuts, claim he has you in a chokehold, and then start wailing away while yelping in pain.

OW! OW! Take that you filthy liberal! OW!
---

ROD posted...

So you agree with ignoring the constitution? wow

The President absolutely has the powers to block entry into the country, the issue are his tweets as mitigating factors. Which I think is bunk but whatever.
---

I wish more politicians stuck to their promises like this. Sure, this is a stupid promise, but it's the principle of the matter.

Obama: Ima close gitmo
Congress: Nah
Obama: Welp I guess we're not closing gitmo

So much winning!
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

On this issue, Trump once again is his own foil

https://mobile.twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/874317609432469505?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I can't stop laughing at the ineptitude of this administration

the problem is for some stupid reason he gets unlimited attempts to do it, so he can get less dumb about this every single time until he does it
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

ROD posted...

So you agree with ignoring the constitution? wow

The President absolutely has the powers to block entry into the country, the issue are his tweets as mitigating factors. Which I think is bunk but whatever.

there's this little thing that protects "classes", such as gender, religion, race, origin, it's in the constitution. Look it up.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

ROD posted...

So you agree with ignoring the constitution? wow

The President absolutely has the powers to block entry into the country, the issue are his tweets as mitigating factors. Which I think is bunk but whatever.

That's where the activist liberal judges wield their gymnastic skills.

I think the Supreme Court solely has to vote based on the laws.

We shall see what happens
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

So Trump tweets are now viewed as admissible in court.

They've been admissible ever since both Trump and Spicer have said his Twitter is an official White House source.
---

ROD post, confusing the civil rights act with the constitution, confusing foreign nationalities with protected classes.
---

Capn Circus posted...

That's where the activist liberal judges wield their gymnastic skills.

I think the Supreme Court solely has to vote based on the laws.

We shall see what happens

Not even going to pretend to know how Scotus might go but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to prove there's a genuine concern about those countries. Leaving other countries out isn't a real argument against it either. Executive prudence n all, not everything is an "all or none"
---

Do you agree with the decision?
---

“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Judge Watson wrote.

so the courts also viewed it as a "Muslim Ban". lol trump
---

So "The President's" Tweets are official statements, and can be used in a legal matter.

So I'm guessing anything before he became Pres-Elect in November can't be scrutinized, but everything after that is open season for offenses
---

Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco...

Oh, so the court that votes against Trump on literally everything? Who cares, we all know it's going to the SC at this point.
---

ZMythos posted...

So "The President's" Tweets are official statements, and can be used in a legal matter.

So I'm guessing anything before he became Pres-Elect in November can't be scrutinized, but everything after that is open season for offenses

Anything statement he makes can be used. It's the same for everyone else.

JE19426 posted...

Anything statement he makes can be used. It's the same for everyone else.

Regardless of when it was made?

Isn't there a legal difference between "President Trump" and "Before President Trump?"
---

Here is what I don't get. The point of the original travel ban was to severely limit immigration from certain risky countries temporarily (three months) while a more comprehensive vetting system was set up.

It's been well over the original timeframe the ban would have taken place in. Why haven't they been using that time to come up with the comprehensive vetting system? In theory the ban would have already come in gone if they had it their way the first time, so why do they keep fighting for it?
---

ZMythos posted...

Regardless of when it was made?

Isn't there a legal difference between "President Trump" and "Before President Trump?"

Trump didn't suddenly become a different person when he took office.
---

Gheb posted...

It's been well over the original timeframe the ban would have taken place in. Why haven't they been using that time to come up with the comprehensive vetting system? In theory the ban would have already come in gone if they had it their way the first time, so why do they keep fighting for it?

Because it was never about "better vetting". It was about banning Muslims, as Trump himself said.
---

Gheb posted...

Here is what I don't get. The point of the original travel ban was to severely limit immigration from certain risky countries temporarily (three months) while a more comprehensive vetting system was set up.

It's been well over the original timeframe the ban would have taken place in. Why haven't they been using that time to come up with the comprehensive vetting system? In theory the ban would have already come in gone if they had it their way the first time, so why do they keep fighting for it?

Technically they did since the second ban removed a country. More to the point, though, the president has always had the ability to ban travel from countries so at this point it's just as much about not diminishing executive powers than it is the ban itself.
---

Gheb posted...

It's been well over the original timeframe the ban would have taken place in. Why haven't they been using that time to come up with the comprehensive vetting system? In theory the ban would have already come in gone if they had it their way the first time, so why do they keep fighting for it?

Because once it was in place, they would have touted the lack of terror attacks in the US as proof it is working. And because it is keeping us safe, it needs to be extended indefinitely.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Trump didn't suddenly become a different person when he took office.

You have to argue the semantics here, it's law we're talking about. The court cited Spicer, who was quoted as saying the tweets are considered "Official Statements by the President of the United States"

2016 DJT was not President, at most he was President Elect. Additionally, none of his Tweets prior to his presidency were used in this decision. So, where are the boundaries of this new legal precedent?
---

ZMythos posted...

2016 DJT was not President, at most he was President Elect.

2016 Trump can still give insight into the thought process of President Trump. And seeing as the only reason to bring up his tweets is to determine his intent on the travel ban, tweets prior to his inauguration are more than valid should there be any relevant to the current discussion.
I mean, prior to this specific case the courts were using his words on the campaign trail as evidence of his intent, and that would be no different than his pre-Presidency tweets.

ZMythos posted...

none of his Tweets prior to his presidency were used in this decision.

Had he even tweeted about the travel ban prior to his midnight ramblings last month? Much less any tweets as damning as those?
---

ZMythos posted...

Regardless of when it was made?

If they feel it's relevant, certainly. You can counter argue that eithet you changed your mind or that you weren't serious. Time will come into play with the "I changed my mind" argument.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Obama: Ima close gitmo
Congress: Nah
Obama: Welp I guess we're not closing gitmo

That IS how it is supposed to be.
---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Obama: Ima close gitmo
Congress: Nah
Obama: Welp I guess we're not closing gitmo

That IS how it is supposed to be.

So you want the president to be a quitter?

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Kim Kusanagi posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Obama: Ima close gitmo
Congress: Nah
Obama: Welp I guess we're not closing gitmo

That IS how it is supposed to be.

So you want the president to be a quitter?

I want the President to remember he's not Palpatine.
---

Schwarber posted...

Winning

Lmao
---

trump got stumped by himself lmao
---