Poor CNN

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,346
Reaction score
2,800
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I don't think anyone doubted the 9th circus would rule against him.

They don't call it the 9th circus for nothing, the most overruled liberal activist court in the nation.

Having said that, I kind of hope the ruling stands.
 

anderson

Awfully Cavalier
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
28,990
Reaction score
5,103
Points
113
Age
43
Location
Dappertutto, come un Capo
I don't think anyone doubted the 9th circus would rule against him.

They don't call it the 9th circus for nothing, the most overruled liberal activist court in the nation.

Having said that, I kind of hope the ruling stands.

For it to be unanimous is a bit significant. Plus if you listened to the arguments put forward by the DOJ, it's clear that it was the only outcome.

Very very strenuous points.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
2,499
Points
113
Location
Michigan
For it to be unanimous is a bit significant. Plus if you listened to the arguments put forward by the DOJ, it's clear that it was the only outcome.

Very very strenuous points.

SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.
 

anderson

Awfully Cavalier
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
28,990
Reaction score
5,103
Points
113
Age
43
Location
Dappertutto, come un Capo
SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.

If you want to put some money on this, we can pick a suitable escrow and get going.
Happy for any amount up to $1k just for the sweat.
 

Mazz22

Age 43 and STILL playing like a champ
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,259
Points
113
Location
MA
SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.

Yeah. It will most likely be re-done into smaller parts. This is going to go forward.
 

anderson

Awfully Cavalier
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
28,990
Reaction score
5,103
Points
113
Age
43
Location
Dappertutto, come un Capo
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,601
Points
113
Age
62
Location
Windsor, CT
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

So you claim it is a "muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric and Juliani's statements?

I don't suppose the actual wording of the order has any bearing?

Is that what we are going to do going forward? Judge something not on what it actually says but what we think the person wanted to do?

Funny how if there is the slightest difference between what Trump's administration says something means, and what a parsing of the details by their opponents says it means, is framed as a "false claim", yet in this case, that isn't necessary.
 

anderson

Awfully Cavalier
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
28,990
Reaction score
5,103
Points
113
Age
43
Location
Dappertutto, come un Capo
So you claim it is a "muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric and Juliani's statements?

I don't suppose the actual wording of the order has any bearing?

Is that what we are going to do going forward? Judge something not on what it actually says but what we think the person wanted to do?

Funny how if there is the slightest difference between what Trump's administration says something means, and what a parsing of the details by their opponents says it means, is framed as a "false claim", yet in this case, that isn't necessary.

When you bar people from predominantly muslim countries from entry and provide exclusions for people from minority religions, I am not sure what part of the actual wording suggests it's not a religiously motivated ban.

Especially given the context of Giulani's comments and Trump's campaign promises.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,174
Reaction score
8,425
Points
113
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

They actually haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the "ban" they have yet to rule on the merits of the case. The original judge issued a temporary restraining order. They (Trump) appealed the temporary restraining order issued by the first judge while the case is still pending. The 9th circuit upheld the restraining order.

~Dee~
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
2,499
Points
113
Location
Michigan
If you want to put some money on this, we can pick a suitable escrow and get going.
Happy for any amount up to $1k just for the sweat.

You have a gambling problem, don't you?

I'll just let you sit tight and think about the gambling beating you took on election day.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
2,499
Points
113
Location
Michigan
They actually haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the "ban". The original judge issued a temporary restraining order. They (Trump) appealed the temporary restraining order issued by the first judge while the case is still pending. The 9th circuit upheld the restraining order.

~Dee~

100% correct.

Means 0% to an Erson when they are desperate to make a "point".

Erson reminds me of the writers that can't quite seem to comprehend the deflategate facts and refer to Brady as having been punished for deflating footballs. Not true, they don't care. Same with politics.
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,228
Reaction score
2,079
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
When you bar people from predominantly muslim countries from entry and provide exclusions for people from minority religions, I am not sure what part of the actual wording suggests it's not a religiously motivated ban.

If it is a Moose-lamb ban one would think it would affect more than 15% or Moose-lambs. :tmack:
 

anderson

Awfully Cavalier
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
28,990
Reaction score
5,103
Points
113
Age
43
Location
Dappertutto, come un Capo
You have a gambling problem, don't you?

I'll just let you sit tight and think about the gambling beating you took on election day.

It's only a problem if you can't afford it.
Given my election bet (lol sample size of 1), you should be happy to grab some action as offered, though.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,601
Points
113
Age
62
Location
Windsor, CT
When you bar people from predominantly muslim countries from entry and provide exclusions for people from minority religions, I am not sure what part of the actual wording suggests it's not a religiously motivated ban.

Especially given the context of Giulani's comments and Trump's campaign promises.

So is any muslim from a country other than those 7 affected by this order?

No.

Those 7 countries only make up about 12% of the world's Muslim population, so yeah, it's not a "Muslim ban"

Also, have you actually read the order?

There are two parts: banning foreign nationals from those 7 countries and stopping refugees.

The only exemption on the visa program is as follows.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

Presumably this could be used to allow those who worked for the US in Afghanaistan, Iraq, etc. be granted Visa's.

It certainly doesn't state there is a religious basis for the case by case evaluation.

The refugee program affects all refugees.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.

How can a total shutdown be considered a "Muslim ban"?

The religious minority criteria only applies to the refugee process.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.

There is nothing here saying anything about any given religion, simply that the potential refugee must be a minority in the country they are from.

So if a German Muslim claimed persecution, then they could conceivably be granted refugee status under that rule.

So again, show me just what part of the written order actually is a "Muslim ban"?
 
Top