Breaking: Supreme Court Rules For Full Enforcement of Trump Travel Ban

originally posted by: Grambler
Progressive translation:

7 supreme court members are fascist racists!

LOL exactly....

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So how do they stop them just coming in through Canada?

We can build a wall there too!

#MAGA

Unless, of course, we beat you to it!

Like to see 0bama's mug about now...!

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So how do they stop them just coming in through Canada?

We can build a wall there too!

#MAGA

Unless, of course, we beat you to it!

Knock yourself out! I am sure Castro's son would be all for it!

Oh my, how far Elena Kagan has fallen ...

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So how do they stop them just coming in through Canada?

We can build a wall there too!

#MAGA

Unless, of course, we beat you to it!

I was thinking more like the Wildlife fences they use on highways here in the US for the Canadian fence. The kind where it would let Americans over to visit but wouldn't let those pesky Canadians back over this way...



lol jk

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So how do they stop them just coming in through Canada?

We can build a wall there too!

#MAGA

Unless, of course, we beat you to it!

Finally, Canada can keep all of the gender binary people out!

No more he's and she's!

Only xi's and xhes and wormkins and whatever other gender pronouns make people feel good!

That's what a president is all about STANDING UP FOR HIS OWN !

I like him bigilier every day 👍

a reply to: butcherguy

We'll find out in the next term I believe. This is just a ruling on the TRO, not on the ban (though it heavily suggests that they believe the ban will succeed on it's merits). There are hearings on the actual ban this week in DC. After that it will likely go to the supreme court.

I think we all knew this was going to happen. All the tweets, threads, facebook posts, and machinations of TV personalities, once again turned out to be pipe dreams.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dfairlite

CNBC link

Two of nine dissent. That means the decisions really wasn't even close.

So your saying, There's still hope then!

The Left's take on this ruling.

Funny, cuz just a month ago or something there was at least one VERY popular thread about Trump NOT winning...

Now we have the travel ban .... and tax plan on its merry little way .... but these aren't YUUUGE in any way, huh?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Look it up. Canada has a good vetting process. A better suggestion would have been mexico. It would be easy to come in that way. But my response: BUILD THE WALL.

I’m not so sure Canada has such a great vetting process. 😕

a reply to: Dfairlite

Seriously...why put this in the mud pit. Now any thread that could have been civil and intelligent is doomed to be more of the same garbage.

As it goes, I've always argued that the POTUS had the right to do what he was doing per his delegated authority concerning immigration. I'm glad to see that the SCOTUS is doing its job, and at a 7-2 split, no less (of course RBG and Sotomayor would dissent...they would argue against the First Amendment if it had negative repercussions for Trump). This isn't a massively sweeping decision, though, as it appears that it only addresses the issue concerning banning people who claim a "bona fide relationship" with someone in the U.S.; they can still be banned from visiting, even as the issue is still underway in the legal system.

CBS News

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices say in an order Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts.

The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where would you have liked it? I'll put the next one there.

So just like winning that election it will never happen right? Cannot wait to see that Southern Wall that will not be built either in 2 years.

The real world - Great GDP. Good jobs Report. Good Consumer Forecast. Tax cuts coming. Mandate going away.

Media - Rapist and Racist in office bans Peace-Loving Muslims after late night call with Putin while facing impeachment

Another win!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think we all knew this was going to happen. All the tweets, threads, facebook posts, and machinations of TV personalities, once again turned out to be pipe dreams.

Opposition to the travel ban wasn't based on any merits, it was just about delaying it so that it's in place for less time before being repealed. Rather than being in place for 4 years, now it will be in place for 3.

That said, I don't really see any merits to the ban. It's completely irrelevant to national security and foreign policy.

Great news. It was ridiculous to see certain federal judges legislating from the bench. The President clearly has the power to control immigration, which is not a constitutional right. Religion is not a reliable indicator of violence, which is why the ban does not only target countries that happen to be Muslim. They also target North Korea and Venezuela, which are hostile to the US. As well as six other countries that support, harbor or are otherwise at risk of terrorists infiltrating the local population. They are: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

This ban is due entirely to their government's (not all these places have a government) poor ability provide vital data by which to vet individuals. That is why the EO also covers enhanced screenings, and positive ID/background checks. It has nothing to do with them being "Muslim countries" and everything to do with those places facilitating terrorism. This includes state sponsored, ie NK + Iran. And it isn't a ban. It is an enhanced screening program, which delays entry for a reasonable time as to prepare the procedures and backplane for such an endeavor.

The spin on this topic has been insane since the activist judges decided to act like elected officials of congress or the WH.

Nothing makes me me feel better than watching the dying embers of Democrats hope fading away.

Well at least they took some VA legislative seats....... Hahhahahha.

Sorry. Hate to gloat. Nah, I like it.

7 to 2 is pretty much, "Why did you even bother us with this?".

I'm sure the pro immigration folks here will support the Supreme Courts ruling, right? Right?

a reply to: Aazadan

You don't see why it is wise to ban travel from countries that produce terrorists at a high rate and don't have a government that can properly identify (and therefore vet) travelers before they leave the country?