As Predicted...

[Rightguide]

So many months ago:


Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban
The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction.

Tucker Higgins

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

 

[BBIX]

Deport EVERYONE


NOW!

 

[BBIX]

DEPORT the "Judges" that banned the ban

 

[MREDME2]

But, but,........the kids....that wall.....white supremecy...... Oh the pain. The pain.

 

[nowisthetime]

Don't we already have enough rightist domestic terrorists and degenerates to worry about in America anyway? Who is gonna save America from good ol' fashioned drunk on meth and Opium homegrown terrorist?



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/


https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-vegas-mass-shooting-terrorism-islam


By the way, the true countries which sponsored Islamic terrorism such as UAE, Egypt or Saudi Arabia aren't even on that list. Gee, wonder why?

You dittoheads really lack in critical thinking skills, don't ya?






I couldn't care less if I'm cussed out (predictable) all because I state the truth.


#TheAnxietyContinues
#FearofExtinction

 

[von_Bismarck]

Trump is making America great again. Great times, Great ruling

Shaddup, Que.

 

[nowisthetime]

Shaddup, Que.

Sad the far right has resorted to creating alts in order to boost their dying numbers.

How fucking desperate.

 

[Wrong Element]

Like I said three weeks ago after the "we must always respect one's religious beliefs" gay wedding cake decision was announced:

We'll see how important the majority in this case really finds religious belief when the travel ban opinion comes down.

 

[Rightguide]

Roberts alludes to the plenary powers of the Congress and the Executive branch:

For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792 (1977); see Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 588–589 (1952) (“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power.”). Because decisions in these matters may implicate “relations with foreign powers,” or involve “classifications defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances,” such judgments “are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive.” Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 81 (1976).

 

[bestone4ever]

Without due process for anyone means without due process for everyone.

 

[Rightguide]

Without due process for anyone means without due process for everyone.

No it doesn't, Roberts in the next sentence says this: "Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry,"

This means they don't have the rights to due process that citizens do. So your premise is without real merit.

 

[nowisthetime]

Obviously, rightists can't grasp conceptual skills.


Muslims who immigrate to the United States do not have much in common with Muslims who illegally cross to European nations due to proximity, besides the obvious. The ones who arrive to America tend to be higher-skilled workers.

Furthermore, they are also law-abiding and respect the nation.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/findings-from-pew-research-centers-2017-survey-of-us-muslims/


https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1214/Hindus-Muslims-among-America-s-best-educated-groups-report-finds

Muslims/Hindus one of the best educated groups
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1214/Hindus-Muslims-among-America-s-best-educated-groups-report-finds

Too busy staring at that brown, black, or Olive-skinned Muslim immigrant while that "homegrown" rightist is shooting down innocent people, en masse, 'for having a bad day'.


Let this be a wake up call to the lazy voters who didn't exercise their rights, allowing Supreme Court seat to be stolen.

Gloves are off, time for Democrats to stop being so polite to these cretins. How is that politeness working?

 

[RobDownSouth]

But, but,........the kids....that wall.....white supremecy...... Oh the pain. The pain.

A White Knight appears!

 

[Rightguide]

Obviously, rightists can't grasp conceptual skills.


Muslims who immigrate to the United States do not have much in common with Muslims who illegally cross to European nations due to proximity, besides the obvious. The ones who arrive to America tend to be higher-skilled workers.

Furthermore, they are also law-abiding and respect the nation.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/findings-from-pew-research-centers-2017-survey-of-us-muslims/


https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1214/Hindus-Muslims-among-America-s-best-educated-groups-report-finds

Muslims/Hindus one of the best educated groups
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1214/Hindus-Muslims-among-America-s-best-educated-groups-report-finds

Too busy staring at that brown, black, or Olive-skinned Muslim immigrant while that "homegrown" rightist is shooting down innocent people, en masse, 'for having a bad day'.


Let this be a wake up call to the lazy voters who didn't exercise their rights, allowing Supreme Court seat to be stolen.

Gloves are off, time for Democrats to stop being so polite to these cretins. How is that politeness working?

So what does all of that have to do with the SCOTUS decision?

BTW, Trump is probably going to pick two more Justices at the SCOTUS. Oh and Democrats are never polite and are about to get slammed by the American people.

 

[bestone4ever]

No it doesn't, Roberts in the next sentence says this: "Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry,"

This means they don't have the rights to due process that citizens do. So your premise is without real merit.

Next up, "SHOW YOUR PAPERS!"

 

[Rightguide]

And more to the plenary power of the Executive:

Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen. In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Attorney General denied admission to a Belgian journalist and selfdescribed “revolutionary Marxist,” Ernest Mandel, who had been invited to speak at a conference at Stanford University. 408 U. S., at 756–757. The professors who wished to hear Mandel speak challenged that decision under the First Amendment, and we acknowledged that their constitutional “right to receive information” was implicated. Id., at 764–765. But we limited our review to whether the Executive gave a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action. Id., at 769. Given the authority of the political branches over admission, we held that “when the Executive exercises this [delegated] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification” against the asserted constitutional interests of U. S. citizens.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

As usual in these controversial cases, I'm always looking for the "fallacy fulcrum" on which legal rationales succeed or fail. In this case, it isn't within the majority opinion. That rationale is fairly straightforward and unassailable.

Rather, it's in Justice Sotomayor's dissent where she meticulously analyzes Trump's prior statements and earlier efforts at a travel ban and concludes:

As the majority correctly notes, “the issue before us is not whether to denounce” these offensive statements. Rather, the dispositive and narrow question here is whether a reasonable observer, presented with all “openly available data,” the text and “historical context” of the Proclamation, and the “specific sequence of events” leading to it, would conclude that the primary purpose of the Proclamation is to disfavor Islam and its adherents by excluding them from the country. The answer is unquestionably yes.

Sorry, Madam Justice, but your latter premise is NOT the "dispositive question." The dispositive question is whether this administration, after generating prior executive policies that were legally suspect, FINALLY came up with one that could pass Constitutional muster QUITE REGARDLESS OF the "offensive statements," "historical context," "openly available data" that would cast aspersions on the motivations of the Chief Executive executing the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AS DELEGATED TO THE EXECUTIVE.

And it passes that muster because the Constitution nowhere prohibits religious, racial or any other sort of bias based on motivation, thought or purpose. The Constitution, in selected application, prohibits discriminatory BEHAVIOR ONLY in the form of both official discriminatory laws and, in the notable case of public accommodations, behaviors of private citizens engaged in public business.

When Congress not all that infrequently passes laws found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, the remedy is to amend or replace the offensive law with one that adheres to legal norms and dictates. The remedial legislation, whatever it may be, is entitled to future judicial review strictly on its legal merits as written and on NO OTHER BASIS, irrespective of the questionable legislative motivations that previously produced a particular abomination.

Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Beyer and Kagan apparently forgot that part.

 

[Rightguide]

Next up, "SHOW YOUR PAPERS!"

It's been the law for the life of the nation.

 

[MREDME2]

A White Knight appears!

I understood that reference.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But we limited our review to whether the Executive gave a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action. Id., at 769. Given the authority of the political branches over admission, we held that “when the Executive exercises this [delegated] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification” against the asserted constitutional interests of U. S. citizens.

Precisely. This and nothing more.

 

[nowisthetime]

Next up, "SHOW YOUR PAPERS!"

You know that is what they are going to try to do. The American right has now become a supremacist group. Well, they have always been, they were dormant for a period of time, and now they are blatant about it with their wild leader.

This is how it starts. Folks need to become vigilant.

That is who they are right now. They can deny, but if it walks like a duck...



First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Rightguide]

As usual in these controversial cases, I'm always looking for the "fallacy fulcrum" on which legal rationales succeed or fail. In this case, it isn't within the majority opinion. That rationale is fairly straightforward and unassailable.

Rather, it's in Justice Sotomayor's dissent where she meticulously analyzes Trump's prior statements and earlier efforts at a travel ban and concludes:



Sorry, Madam Justice, but your latter premise is NOT the "dispositive question." The dispositive question is whether this administration, after generating prior executive policies that were legally suspect, FINALLY came up with one that could pass Constitutional muster QUITE REGARDLESS OF the "offensive statements," "historical context," "openly available data" that would cast aspersions on the motivations of the Chief Executive executing the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AS DELEGATED TO THE EXECUTIVE.

And it passes that muster because the Constitution nowhere prohibits religious, racial or any other sort of bias based on motivation, thought or purpose. The Constitution, in selected application, prohibits discriminatory BEHAVIOR ONLY in the form of both official discriminatory laws and, in the notable case of public accommodations, behaviors of private citizens engaged in public business.

When Congress not all that infrequently passes laws found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, the remedy is to amend or replace the offensive law with one that adheres to legal norms and dictates. The remedial legislation, whatever it may be, is entitled to future judicial review strictly on its legal merits as written and on NO OTHER BASIS, irrespective of the questionable legislative motivations that previously produced a particular abomination.

Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Beyer and Kagan apparently forgot that part.

Totally agree. The Court has remanded the case for further proceedings but having done so it has highly circumscribed the lines of reasoning the lower courts may take in those proceedings in future cases.

 

[ryan8558]

Deport EVERYONE


NOW!

Ok if they start with you?


oh yes. almost forgot.

teehee

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Next up, "SHOW YOUR PAPERS!"

It would make it easier if immigrants had to wear arm bands, they'd be easier to identify.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Like I said three weeks ago after the "we must always respect one's religious beliefs" gay wedding cake decision was announced:

What does religion have to do with it? The ban is against persons and makes no reference to religion. I know you are crying over Muslims, but there are people of that faith in Egypt and Indonesia and other nations, and there is no ban against them.