It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

It's not meant to. It's meant to stop from importing new terrorists. You know, stop the leak before you start to scoop water from the boat.


Foreign terrorists aren't an issue, and in the few times they have been an issue... they came from countries not on this list.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

the SCOTUS nominees were the MOST important reasons to vote for trump and not hillary



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
MSM is trying to spin this as an anti-Muslim/religious/first amendment thing. There are several serious problems with this proposition.

First is that it has nothing to do with their religion. Two countries on that list (which are conveniently left off most MSM articles) are North Korea and Venezuela. Along with Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen which are all either state sponsors of terrorism, or train/harbor/facilitate terrorists. The threat they pose by infiltrating the local population is enormous and has been demonstrated on several occasions. This isn't just a theory, it is a real world concept.

If this was an attack on Muslims why would he choose some of the countries with small populations? For instance three of those 6 nations are Syria, Somalia, and Libya. Respectively, their populations are 19 million, 11 million, 6 million. Compared to the real Muslim majority countries out there, like Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt. Their populations are 210 million, 176 million, 168 million, 135 million, 77 million, 76 million. Compared to these countries, the places affected by the ban represent the minority of the Muslim population, by a long stretch. Clearly this isn't about religion. (population sources for Muslim Majority countries)

Some of these places are not countries in the way we think of countries. They are controlled by rogue dictators that sponsor terrorism with the resources of a nation-state, or they are controlled by terrorists themselves. Those locations do not keep the kind of records and information that we need to securely vet prospective people originating from these lawless and terror faciliating locations.

It is falsely being spun by the anti-Trump news media as a religious attack, when it is no such thing. Unless you count North Korea and Venezuela as Muslim majority countries. The people living in affected countries constitute ~4% the total Muslim population world-wide. It is not rational to spin this into a "Muslim ban."
edit on 12/4/2017 by JBurns because: spelling error



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: pavil


The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges against it continue. [...] The court’s brief, unsigned order on Monday urged appeals courts to move swiftly to determine whether the latest ban was lawful.


NTY



Ok. Did you miss the bolded part of my quote? It seems likely, at least to CNBC, that the SC will uphold the ban. We will wait to see which interpretation is accurate.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Liberal judges playing politics slapped down again.
It is surely time for these judges who keep wasting time and money playing games and subverting the constitution to be impeached.
edit on 4/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I hope Obama cuts his holiday to North Korea short and speaks up 👍

MAGA


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

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


Did you read that before you posted it? Because that's the silliest and most unsupportable statement I've read on here all day. Even Silly hasn't topped that today. Ouch!



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yea. Not saying it's impossible, and I do think it's an indication the court would lean towards upholding the ban.

I just have zero faith either of those two particular courts of appeals won't uphold the ban just to give everybody the finger and make SCOTUS come back in on it fully.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Aazadan

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


Did you read that before you posted it? Because that's the silliest and most unsupportable statement I've read on here all day. Even Silly hasn't topped that today. Ouch!


Oh no, she did when she said HRC has never been proven to have lied.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I understand the skepticism. It's not misplaced.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
I still don't get why anyone would be against being more careful about these areas that breed badness.


Because it's mostly the "good people" trying to "escape" the badness, that get affected by the ruling. To the good people get punished twice. First, for being born in the wrong part of the world, and second by being "grouped" together with the bad people and treated the same as if they were criminals too.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Those are serious questions that experts have wondered. The list left off not just large countries but the countries that actually support terror and it even put one of our allies on it. All the more reason why the temporary injunction was so baffling, not only is it inconsistent with any sort of policy but it didn't mean anything either. Which doesn't do much to help the merits of the ban.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil


Ok. Did you miss the bolded part of my quote?


No, I didn't. Did you miss the sentence directly before what you bolded? The SCOTUS order only allows the ban to take effect while the appeals courts work out the challenges to it. That is all.

Sure, if a case were brought before the SCOTUS, it very could be granted (because of the order). But this is about letting the lawfulness, due to the legal challenges, work itself out in lower courts.

To review or challenge the lower courts decisions, certiorari would have to be granted.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Yes. What have those nations done to threaten our national security? What do countries like Yemen and Chad have to do with our foreign policy?

It's literally just a random list of countries that have nothing to do with anything.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Dfairlite

Gotcha, thanks.

Can't say I agree that the lower courts will be likely to uphold, though. Those two courts have a lengthy history of doing as they please and legislating from the bench. I don't think they'll particularly care what SCOTUS did today and will rule however they're going to rule and let it be appealed from there.

They're not likely to roll over, I don't think.


Translation:These Courts don't mind the SCOTUS overruling them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has the largest number of cases overruled by the SC of any appeal Court and also has one of the highest reversal rates of cases the SC hears, 79%.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Oh no, she did when she said HRC has never been proven to have lied.


No ship?!? Lol...I missed that. So, I guess Az comes in at # 2 after all.



edit on 4-12-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Aazadan

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


Did you read that before you posted it? Because that's the silliest and most unsupportable statement I've read on here all day. Even Silly hasn't topped that today. Ouch!


Oh no, she did when she said HRC has never been proven to have lied.



Well, in her defense, extremely careless without intent is not lying - it's incompetence. She did, however, have intent what with the hammer and bleach and cloth and stuff.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: pavil


Ok. Did you miss the bolded part of my quote?


No, I didn't. Did you miss the sentence directly before what you bolded? The SCOTUS order only allows the ban to take effect while the appeals courts work out the challenges to it. That is all.

Sure, if a case were brought before the SCOTUS, it very could be granted (because of the order). But this is about letting the lawfulness, due to the legal challenges, work itself out in lower courts.

To review or challenge the lower courts decisions, certiorari would have to be granted.


Winner buys the beer when the SC ultimately decides. Deal? I wont mind buying you a drink.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I love how the lying MSM plays the "6 mostly Muslim countries" despite the fact that people are free to travel to the U.S. from most Muslim-majority countries in the world.
The real headline should say "6 countries with nonfunctional governments, rampant terrorism, and little to no security controls".

By the way, here's a list of Muslim-majority countries for all the "Trump is banning Muslims!" idiots:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Chad
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Guinea
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mayotte
Morocco
Niger
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
The Gambia
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Western Sahara
Yemen



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Valid point, but it bears noting that the context of her comment was "never, not even once, been proven to have lied."

Still waiting on a response to my pointing out when Comey testified she (HRC) had lied to the public about her email.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join