LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

As Predicted...

Boxlicker101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

or S Arabia or Quatar or Kuwait or France and England:D
 
Boxlicker101 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Just pointing out that, as I knew would happen (which is why I'm not "crying" about anything), the Court is now saying some forms of religious animus are allowable. In the bakery case, the alleged Christian-hating of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was the primary basis for the majority opinion.

By the way, if you don't believe me that this is a results-oriented Court that makes it up as it goes along, there was another ruling today which says that California can't require pro-life women's health centers to post certain notices about the availability of abortion elsewhere, and (if applicable) that said center may not be staffed by health care professionals. The Court said that the regs violate the First Amendment.

All fine and dandy, except as the dissent pointed out, there are rules in a LOT of states, such as my own, which mandate what abortion doctors must say to women who visit, and those have been consistently upheld. Anyone who believes these same five justices will ever rule against those laws on First Amendment grounds is either naive or a liar.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol.. Limpdicked message board troll schooling Supreme Court Justice.

What an asshole. :rolleyes:
 
Stain_mAnn said:
It would make it easier if immigrants had to wear arm bands, they'd be easier to identify. :)
Click to expand...

Wanna see a low down, slack-jaw backwoods Deplorable creature start drooling with rabid rage?

Have them meet an immigrant who is better looking, more educated, more skilled, or in a higher socio-economic status than them.

Ooo wee, does that piss them off.:D
 
Boxlicker101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Boxlicker101 said:
What do you mean by "Next up?" That already happens. If you don't believe that, go out driving and get stopped.
Click to expand...

You should be cursing God for giving you the retard.
 
nowisthetime said:
Wanna see a low down, slack-jaw backwoods Deplorable creature start drooling with rabid rage?

Have them meet an immigrant who is better looking, more educated, more skilled, or in a higher socio-economic status than them.

Ooo wee, does that piss them off.:D
Click to expand...

Do you understand what you really posted here?

That those immigrants you claim who are "better looking, more educated, more skilled and have higher socio-economic status that US citizens are to be preferred over US citizens in the USA?

WHY?????

Shouldn't our efforts/money/political focus be better served by helping US citizens be "better looking, more educated, more skilled and having a higher socio-economic status" than immigrants?
 
Once again, TimRapy reads into a post what he wants to see, rather than what was actually written or *gasp* intended.

#RemedialEducation
#FunctionallyIlliterate
 
Thomas makes an observation in his concurrence you won't hear about in the MSM:

The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality. I If district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions, that authority must come from a statute or the Constitution. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70




3 Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018)
THOMAS, J., concurring 124 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring). No statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions.2 So the only possible bases for these injunctions are a generic statute that authorizes equitable relief or the courts’ inherent constitutional authority. Neither of those sources would permit a form of injunctive relief that is “[in]consistent with our history and traditions.”
 
Last edited:
HisArpy said:
Do you understand what you really posted here?

That those immigrants you claim who are "better looking, more educated, more skilled and have higher socio-economic status that US citizens are to be preferred over US citizens in the USA?

WHY?????

Shouldn't our efforts/money/political focus be better served by helping US citizens be "better looking, more educated, more skilled and having a higher socio-economic status" than immigrants?
Click to expand...

I believe our efforts/money/political focus are better served by helping US citizens, naturalized or native born, and legal immigrants be "better looking, etc. than illegal immigrants.
 
I am disappointed.

Not that the SCOTUS Ruled in Trump's favor but it means that four Judges either can't read and understand the Constitution and articles or they don't want to.

THAT IS BAD.

Clearly who you vote for does makes a difference.
 
@DannyZuker: Imagine all of the terrorist attacks that would have been stopped if @realDonaldTrump had gotten his travel ban 500 days ago! Wait, what's that? Zero terrorist attacks by immigrants? Nearly all the mass shootings were white citizens? Many who identified as MAGA? Huh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY Backs Trump Admin on Asylum
Replies
15
Views
540
PaxNurgle
P
Rightguide
We're Done With That Sh*t
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Wilson23
W
Rightguide
Trump Wins Appeal For Removal Of Bragg Case
Replies
3
Views
373
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Rightguide
The Sun Came Up In Communist Washington
Replies
9
Views
384
OralAllOver
OralAllOver
Rightguide
SCOTUS Upholds Ban On Medicare Funds For Planned Butcherhood
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Back
Top