Trump Admin. takes travel ban to SCOTUS

As I understand, it's discrimination based on religion that they are going after. Discriminating against countries is legally acceptable, but they assert that he is trying to discriminate against religion by proxy (discrimination against religion should also be legal, 1st Amendment doesn't apply to foreigners, but that's just the angle that the 9th circuit went).

I think if they rule against Trump they set a dangerous precedent. An insane precedent, where the text of laws no longer matter, but rather subjective speculation over intentions. Judges become gods if the supreme court rules in favor of the idea that intentions matter and not the text of the law.

"I think these tax cuts are actually designed to discriminate against low-income blacks who rely on government services…discrimination against blacks is unconstitutional :^)"

At which point the executive branch might have to set an even more dangerous precedent of kicking the judiciary off its feet when it gets too cocky. Even the muh constitution cucks should by now be waking up to how flawed the system is.

quite a thorny legal issue we have here, whether or not the president can do things that the constitution explicitly says that he can do

surely the supreme court can put a stop to this out-of-control madman's attempt to grab the powers designated to the office that he holds

Thing is, there is no such thing as a flawless system when anyone can interpret anything they want in any way. Case in point - What we're talking about right now. The language giving the President power over immigration cannot be any more clear. Yet it's still not working as intended because of people inventing loopholes over speculation about intent or what this or that word "really means."

As always, the real problem is the Jews, and everything would work as intended without them trying to apply subjectivity to everything.

If it does fail you can always use judicial review. That shit goes straight to the supreme court (or highest equivalent court in the west) and takes priority over everything. This only works if it violates your constitution and any citizen of the country can do it.

Never in the SCOTUS, but laws on requiring ID to vote in elections have been blocked by state Supreme Courts on the speculation that they might discriminate against nogs (of which liberals claim that black people don't usually get ID because……. they never explain why).

There have been attempts on passing some voter ID laws in West Virginia and California before the elections but deemed "likely unconstitutional" by state courts.

Checking criminally unacknowledged dubs. Also truefax are true.

The problem is kikes, they are SO kikey.
They have spent millennia trying to jew God himself by constantly looking for loopholes in their holy books that they can exploit to get their own way.
As if God is that dumb that he could be fooled by a kike.
Such arrogance.
But it means they are pretty good at loopholes and getting their own way at this point.

This + ISIS France ultimatum = Jew media meltdown

You won't hear about it until it's too late

They stole the name "God" from Germanics, their own deity is completely fine with what they do and rewards them but the problem kikes encounter is that can't turn it off and that is why they get thrown out.

So let's say that SCOTUS says Muslim ban is unconstitutional, then someone will bring up the case that preventing Mexican immigration or Chinese is also unconstitutional under the same judicial activism. This leads to the conclusion that the United States can't protect its borders against "groups" which is a fallacy as the United States has always had borders breaking their argument. Thus Muslim must go through or the kikes will be seen out in the open for what they truly are.

but the bullets would damage our big beautiful wall-chan

If taken to the Supreme Court though, after this wins let's say, wouldn't that override state courts?

Ginsberg already has her lies prepared.

Sort of. A precedent will be set, however within the states there would need to be challenges etc. They will twist every ruling and it will be years of fighting in all the states to get the fuckery to stop.

If it means progress, I'll take it.

0% chance.
Trump's ban is constitutional but the SCOTUS only exists to promote a commie agenda. I believe that all of the judges are compromised.

Shills already forgetting about Gorsuch I see.

I actually did until you reminded me.
Holy shit how did I forget that shit?

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are guaranteed to go along with it. Roberts might cuck out, but I doubt it. It's most likely going to be another decision that comes down to Kennedy.
This shouldn't actually be a close vote, because the Constitution is very clear about giving broad powers to regulate immigration to the executive branch. Problem is that recently SCOTUS has been deciding more and more cases based on feels instead of what the Constitution actually says. Everyone who hasn't already should read Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges.

You're forgetting about Scalia.
4 of 5 of the votes they need are kikes. You really think they can't flip one with threats or black mail?

Reminder that the president can recall SCOTUS justices if they violate the Constitution.
Reminder that US law says that the president may ban anyone from any country at any time for any reason.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It's alright user. So much shit's happened in the past six months, even I forget about the best things, like when Trump implied evil won WWII.

Not really, no.

(checked)
Holy shit really? I wasn't even aware.

Dude, that was like his first week in office. He's done a ton of subtle shit like that.

INB4 THE KENNEDY CUCKENING

I smell a ruse cruise pulling out of port.

Sort of. A precedent will be set, however within the states there would need to be challenges etc. They will twist every ruling and it will be years of fighting in all the states to get the fuckery to stop.
…aka "far more time than the last US civil war took to 'litigate' on the battlefield." war is the continuation of litigation by other means sorry, von Clausewitz

If it means progress, I'll take it.
It depends if (((they))) delay the progress until after millions of illegals vote and change the outcome of the presidential election, it may all become moot.

Then it's not progress is it?

Hm. The constitution provides that justices can be impeached/removed from office, by the same method used for a president. Allowing a president to simply "recall" justices for violating the constitution (in his assessment) would seem to be a substantial violation of separation of powers.

Can you provide a source for your bold claim?

Mmmmmm I think I see what Trump is trying to do

So when is SCOTUS supposed to hear the case? Next month, next year, five years from now?

Are there places the Justices readily congregate to associate with the people/press such that people can voice their opinion to them? I.e. say "Either you enforce this ban, or you're going against the Constitution/the people of this nation", etc. In addition to that, the added fear that subdues one's mind when confronted with an actual mob voicing their opinions would be pretty effective.

Isn't supreme court filled with libcucks and kikes?

"Quickly", so in a year or less. But since it's so high profile it may just be a few months.

It's a ballsy move though, the precedent set would either allow states to take in tons of refugees or allow the president to basically ban anyone he feels like. Either we have an EU situation with the refugees or a massive win.

If we have a complete block on "legal immigrants" from Spic countries and refugees, establish nationwide voter ID laws, and start to tackle the massive amount of illegals. We may actually save this fucking country from drowning in the brown sea.

One can hope.

We do it on the mexican side.

trump's well within his rights
anyone that claimed otherwise should be swinging gently in the breeze when this is dealt with

Ginsburg may be having an "accident" sooner than later.

CNN's take on the story:
archive.fo/ESHOa

Difficult to say. The Trump camp is hoping Gorsuch will tow the line and back the President, but there is a lot of historical evidence that shows an appointee going against the will of the President. Of course, that also depends on this being a 5-4 or not.

If SCOTUS upholds the lower courts decisions, then that's it. The only way to overturn the Supreme Court is by amending the Constitution.

I hear gas doesn't leave any physical damage depending on what type you use… Just saying…

For the SCOTUS, because they will have violated the Constitution. You do not have the right to enter the country.
No, you can impeach the court and have them rule on it again.

...

Judicial review allows SCOTUS to determine whether or not something is in line with the Constitution or not. If SCOUT declares something unConstitutional, then it is. The lower courts rulings also take into account Trumps' anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign. He can't stand there and say "but I didn't really mean it" now. Everything you say can and will be used against you in court.

Good luck with that.

Uh, no. It was invented after the Constitution was written.
Uh, no. That’s literally not how anything works, anywhere, you cocksucking faggot.
Still irrelevant to fact.
Still irrelevant to fact. President can ban anyone from anywhere at any time for any reason.
Irrelevant to the law.
Read the Constitution, dumbass.

Except he can't. The First Amendment applies to travel bans and the President cannot ban based on religion. Or do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply because it was written after the Constitution?

I strongly suggest you do the same.

...

Freedom of religion is a right granted to citizens, potential citizens do not have those rights yet. It would be a matter of whether or not the rights of citizens in the US should apply to "potential" citizens, if at all. Even going so far as to say that it does, the president still retains the ability to do so. "For whatever reason" means for whatever reason.

The president has always had the ability to ban entrance to this country for anything and everything. No exceptions. He could ban everyone with red hair, left-handers, or iphone users and it would be well within his rights. If the Supreme Court decides to strip him of this power given to the president by the Constitution, they are violating the separation of powers and liable to be impeached.

The Constitution and the First Amendment don't apply to foreigners. Imagine a German invoking their 2nd Amendment rights- that'd be ridiculous.

The First Amendment applies to the President. The Constitution LIMITS government and the First Amendment limits Presidential authority. It's why you don't get arrested for saying "Trump is a smelly fat bastard" in public.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

So, yeah, if a German is here in the US, he can inoke his 2nd Amendment rights.

Should also point out that the President doesn't have absolute authority over immigration. The Obama administration was blocked when it tried to grant temporary residency to millions of illegal immigrants, so there is clearly not "unlimited power".

We're not talking about aliens living here we're talking about people that have never entered this country before and are immigrating.

I have a feeling his source is
>I want it to be true.

Tell me how that applies to noncitizens who have never stepped foot in the country.

Granted, but Presidential authority is not absolute when it comes to immigration. Court precedent proves that.

It was an example of non-citizens having Constitutional rights. You can also look at BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

And completely irrelevant to the situation at hand because those aliens were residing inside the United States. No shit they have rights, you can't just murder noncitizens or steal their stuff, but that wasn't what was being argued at all. You're throwing out court cases because your arguments can't stand for themselves and you don't think anyone will actually read them and prove you wrong.

You were already proven wrong. Kill yourself.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
CITIZENS. NOT FOREIGNERS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES.
You were already proven wrong. Kill yourself.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
It is the constitution, you cocksucking kike.

I'm throwing out court cases because THAT is what the Supreme Court will consider when making their decision. The courts don't give a shit about your - or Trump's - feelings. Court precedent has given non-citizens Constitutional rights and has limited Presidential authority on immigration.

If Obama can be blocked by SCOTUS, so can Trump. If you want to cry about it and scream and reeee about killing Justices, go right ahead. Tantrums are the natural result of someone not getting their way; but court cases dating back to the 1800s have placed limits on Presidential authority whether you like it or not.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong, fuckface.
Article II, Section 3, Clause 5: He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
US law states that the president may ban anyone from anywhere at any time for any reason.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Congress must amend this law to prevent the president from executing it.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES.

What are Amendments?

You're throwing out court cases that don't support your argument. BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH won't ever be referenced with regards to this case because it deals with PoWs.

Prisoners of war are extended a writ of habeas corpus when:
None of that supports what you're saying. You are arguing in bad faith. It's similar to the 'just read x and you'll understand' method that people use. You're hiding behind cases you yourself don't understand because you think it'll stop people from disagreeing with you and make you look right.

Except that it is further documented proof that non-citizens are given Constitutional protection. Thus the argument "the Constitution only applies to citizens" is false.

Fuck off, faggot.

You do not have the right to enter the country.

Still have yet to read where anyone else gets rights.

Huh. I didn't know we had 2 Nevadas.

Europoor here. If Trump can't get past the kike judges, you need to make yourself heard. They are boiling you alive like frogs.

CHECKT AND REKT FAGGOT

I think if they rule against Trump they set a dangerous precedent. An insane precedent, where the text of laws no longer matter, but rather subjective speculation over intentions. Judges become gods
Yeah, no fucking shit. The Supreme Court usurped the power of the legislature in 1798 in Marbury vs Madison when it gave itself the never-before-heard-of power of judicial review, declaring that it can just declare any law made by Congress unconstitutional.

All of the wild interpretations of the Constitution since then are only symptoms of this disease. People were aware of this shit when the US was founded. Read the Anti-Federalist papers:

thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/78-79.html

So which of these criteria does a travel ban violate? The establishment of a religion? The free exercise of a religion? The freedom of speech or the press? The right of people to peacably assemble? To petition the government for a redress of grievances?

This isn't your Bible study class where you find some random prooftext that vaguely alludes to whatever you want to prove and call it a day. The words in the First Ammendment have a specific meaning and nothing in it guarantees anyone access to the territory to the United States on any ground. You can be as Muslim as you want according to the FA, but that doesn't mean that you can come to the US if you're Muslim.

Conservatives were too christcucked to do what was necessary in McCarthy's day, so it falls to us.

Professors were secretly supportive of commies 50 years ago, now the universities are rotten beyond repair.

Or to just disregard them. They're nine geriatrics in robes.

Actually, they can use Federal Marshals and the National Guard to enforce their decisions. Andrew Jackson's days are long gone.

It means the President cannot stop you from entering the US just because you're Muslim. Pay attention.

Scalia will move the decision in Trumps favor

benis

Probability of failure to pass is 4%

It's bullshit.

This is the exact same Supreme court who has sitting judges who's demographics benefit from affirmative action rule in favor of it.

No the president has authority to ban anybody for any reason, I guarantee you if this was a Christian ban it would have been implemented day 2

You know Scalia was assassinated a few years ago right?

Shills never do their research user.

Bullshit. Supreme Court justices are supposed to abide by the constitution, not make rulings on feelings.

Wasn't the travel ban supposed to be a 90 day ban in order to get our shit together and improve vetting?
why do we still need it?
didn't we get our vetting shit together already?

Scalia's ghost will rise from the grave and scare Ginsberg to death, allowing the justices sympathetic to Trump to steamroll the lefty ones.

Reich digits have foretold it.

Time to bring them back then. For too long judges of all types have felt free to rewrite laws as they wish. If they order armed resistance against the President's lawful authority, the charge should be sedition.

Because it sets a shit precedent

This is completely different though, because the logs are citizens on US soil. This case is saying that first amendment protection should extend to foreigners on foreign soil. They are literally trying to say that the US Constitution is some universal document that applies to everyone on earth, regardless of citizenship status and outside of US territory. It would be absolute insanity.

Gorsuch was confirmed as the story about the Syrian missile strike broke. That's part of why Trump did it. Bombing the airstrip shut the media up about muh Russia AND Gorsuch.

spicer outright denied the holocaust even happened

That was a fucking beautiful briefing.

absolutely DRIPPING with animus

spicer is awesome

i missed that one, have a link or webm?

The congress. Specifically, making laws. The president didn't make a law nor did congress.

you can probably find it on youtube spicer is talking about assad and suggests he's terrible because "even hitler didn't use chemical weapons" and later clarifies when asked that "hitler never used chemical weapons on his own countries' citizens"

But we're not talking about US citizens so it's not a valid argument. It's not complicated.

No it doesn't, my large-nosed friend. He's not prohibiting people within the US from practicing Islam, just preventing a certain group of people who are neither citizens of the country nor inside its borders from entering, exactly as he is allowed to do.

Its funny because even by the kiked up version of history the normalfags know the first statement is true. Its not like you'd call a guillotine a weapon.

Yes, but if it's upheld it will cut both ways. If there is another Dem president in the future then some pissant district judge can place a nationwide restraining order on any leftist executive order xe makes and do it using a completely retarded justification full of specious reasoning that would get a first semester law student laughed out of the classroom. This will take 9+ months to fix via appeal to supreme court. Each time. And the judges won't be impeached, so they can just do it again, thereby paralyzing the government. This is caltrops vs cavalry.

You'd think the supreme court would be interested in having a functional government and would want to keep their house in order (in terms of not having random individual circuit judges appointing themselves as de facto supreme courts with nationwide jurisdiction). But that's just me. I'll take it either way.

...

Didn't Bill Clinton invoke it on Cuban refugees?

Obama did it to Iraqis in 2011.

If we're not at war with the nation(s) in question, then the law actually doesn't apply.

Any democuck will say "n-no" simply because its Trump doing something. Doesnt matter if its helping the country. They are fucking kids.

IF (((THEY))) BLOCK TRUMPS ORDER THAT MEANS THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB AND COULD PROBABLY GET FIRED IS THIS THE PLAN BLOCK TRUMP TRUMP FIRES THEY GET NEWS COVERAGE VICTIMS COMPLEX TO THE MAX THEY SAY SHIT LIKE TRUMP HATES MUDSHITS AND HE'S AN EVIL DICTATOR WE TRIED TO STOP THE MADNESS THE HATE THE BIGGIT THE WORLD IS NOT SAFE GLOBAL WARMING WE ARE AL GOING TO DIE WE NEED IMPEACHMENT WE NEED TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN FROM THE HATE

and other commie bullshit

COULD THIS BE THE START OF CIVIL WAR 2 IF IT GOES WRONG ?

Same criticism they levied against the rino cucks under king nigger. Don't bother levying weak as fuck summaries like this… we aren't trying to understand them… just continue making fun of them and collecting salt.

I like those heavenly digits, but you're wrong. (Your post will be the reason why this gets shot down, though)

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:
This means that CONGRESS cannot pass a LAW that restricts the freedom of religion or prevention of practicing said religion on CITIZENS (because citizens are the only people who a nation's laws apply to), or establishing an official religion in the Union. You'd think the law would be very clear, but laws like this are twisted and intentionally misinterpreted to apply any ideology to. Your reasoning is what will hold the travel ban back, even though anyone who can read should be able to see that it's legal.

I do understand where you're coming from, but the defense of Trump's travel ban is, in fact, a law. 8 U.S. Code § 1182, which is a law enacted by Congress. If that law violates the First Amendment's religion clause, then it cannot be used to justify the travel ban.

The Constitution does not specify "citizens" and there are many cases where non-citizens have been granted Constitutional protection. I figure SCOTUS will probably hear the arguments on this one pretty quickly (within the next week is my guess) and then we'll have a whole new set of grievances to worry about.

It should pass. Key word is should. Almost everything that has happened since the presidential election season started has been extraordinary. We are living in a time of change and upheaval, and I'm not just saying that to try and sound lofty. There are clearly certain groups of powerful people in our country who believe that they are at their last straw and are employing methods they wouldn't normally use; I feel confident of this because of all these extraordinary events occurring. In normal circumstances, I'd be fairly sure that this would pass since conservative judges tend to actually, you know, interpret the fucking law correctly. Kikes like Ginsberg and liberal judges are likely to "interpret" whatever they want out of federal law.

To be frank, judges are already God status in this fucked up government. Or at least, they are close to it. John Marshall was a mixed blessing.

Well, fuck. Thank you for pointing that out.

Incidentally, fuck precedent.

No, he can't. Only the congress can through impeachment, but attempting to remove a sitting justice because of how they decided a case would unleash fucking pandemonium. And it would fail anyway because it requires 2/3rds to pass the senate(by constitutional law, not just senate procedural cuckery)

Trump should just go full FDR on the SCOTUS already. Democrats have always been corrupt as fuck when it comes to rigging the system like all of Obama's spaghetti leaking right now from its rotting moldy hold so much so they even fuck over their own fellow Dems like they did with Bernie. RNC is spineless retards always falling for across the aisles retardation where the democrats never ever keep their promises like with guns or banks giving stupid niggers who can never pay it back loans in return for other shit they didn't keep the promise and caused the housing crisis. Worst thing about the RNC is that it's full of neocon traitors always quick to sell the US for a shekel and the establishment elite went so far as to shill and vote for Hill instead of Trump. The Donald doesn't have to take this shit. Just learn from history and do what other presidents did, all the restraints off. No mercy.

Wouldn't that work both ways? Then whites can claim descrimination on anything that benefits other races over them. Shit would be a nightmare. Every action would have to have ethnic subjective considerations.

The US Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens of foreign countries living in foreign countries. Anyone who believes otherwise is imperious, globalist scum.

No President should ever go FDR on anything, ever.

Hey, I'm with ya on that one; but unfortunately nobody has actually asked my opinion on the matter. We just have to hope that SCOTUS does what is right, rather than what is lawful. Sometimes the two don't intersect.

Trump might be trying to entrap the Supreme Court into making an obvious bullshit ruling to try and impeach a judge. He only needs to get rid of one kike to have an outright majority of judges who will (however cuckingly) follow the letter of the Constitution.

If the Republicans win bigly in the mid terms he may get enough seats to push a judicial impeachment through

Reported for intl.

lol faggot

You do not have the right to enter the country.

If SCOTUS does go full retard can Trump enforce the nations borders with the military, under military rule?

Unfortunately, no. Posse Comitatus Act. It would be an impeachable offense for him to use the military as such.

It doesn't matter how bullshit the ruling is, you won't get even one dem, let alone fourteen, to vote against their faggot penumbra finders. It can't pass the senate.

Nice get script, JTRIG.

If you can be a muslim at the border, you can carry a gun at the border. You're also not allowed to be searched without probable cause, so why not waltz in with a bag full of blow.

Oh, wait, the courts have upheld multiple times that the borders are essentially lawless zones where the constitution does not apply until you have legally entered the US. USCIS could literally gangrape you for hours at the border, summarily execute you, and ship your corpse back to your country of origin, and you wouldn't have recourse, because there is no US law until you are in the US. Even if you're a muslim.

Do you realize that the Trump travel ban also affects people who are legal residents of the US from returning to the US from one of the designated nations? Not illegals, not refugees, not border hoppers; but genuinely legal residents. I realize you're a (1), but at least do try to keep up with the conversation.

And it does this based upon their travel history(because it's a travel ban), and doesn't test for religion, meaning it has nothing to do with 1A. But of course (You) already knew that.

Irrelevant. A green card also does not guarantee you entry into the united states, and they tell you this when you get a green card. If you are not a citizen, you have a privilege of entering the US, not a right. Even US citizens do not have constitutional rights at the border, but they do have the legal right to enter the country (even if they enter and go straight to jail.)

...

...

that's not what it means at all and yes chaim, he can ban non-citizen muslims from the country

...

...

Can't Trump just make a liberal Supreme Court member have a "heart attack"? You know they have the technology.

When will they announce their decision.

Unknown.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court comes back with a 9-0 decision in his favor. Literally every lower court that ruled against it did so on grounds having nothing to do with the actual law.

Which was nullified in the 2014 NDAA.

Despite the obvious factor of bias, i actually think they'll uphold it, i doubt they could actually mount any legal argument against it without looking like fools

They learned how to ignore written text by watching the SCOTUS, i expect the lower courts to get beat down, but i'ld be surprised if it were unanimous.

You've been watching too many Talmuddywood movies.

(((Ginsberg))) is the most activist justice in human history and 4 of the justices are kikes, so they can do olympian mental gymnastics. A 9-0 decision in Trump's favor is literally the least likely possible outcome next to Trump saying "fuck it" and attempting a coup over the Judiciary mid-trial.

No way will it be 9-0, half of the SCOTUS believes in the bullshit idea that the constitution is a "living document" and it's okay to legislate from the bench. We know Gorsuch is a bro and will vote yes. Ginsberg and "the wise latina" Sotomayor make a mockery of their profession and vote down party lines.

The challenge will be convincing either all of the other 4 conservatives (one of which is a nigger) to vote yes, or one of the two "moderate" liberal justices.

I foresee 7-2 with the dissenting opinion written by either Ginsberg or Sodomizer being a single page with [AUTISTIC SCREECHING] written on it.

Good news is that Ginsberg is going to be 85 this month and is looking frail. The other kike on the bench is also old at 78, and is almost as liberal as her and the beaner. Kennedy is 80, but he's a "conservative" elected by Reagan.

Hopefully Trump would be able to replace all 3 of these guys… with 4 pro-Trump justices we really turn the power structure of this nation to our hands.

user, I have bad news and worse news

This. This shit is why. The democrats are going to get raped by the police state they built. This is why police states are bad, always. There is no guarantee the power will stay in "friendly" hands, ever.

I hope they learn to be more suspicious about surveillance and military authority when the govt. starts deporting all of the immigrant students who put their names on a govt.-owned list. Just because Obama is using that to give you a free cookie now doesn't mean it won't be used to gas your dumb ass later.

Same goes for Holla Forums of course, but I think you're all acutely aware of just how bad things could've gotten under Hillary. Learn from your opponent's mistakes.

Which may be why they are rushing the decision. Given the circumstances, I'm not sure this will go well. Until we can hear the arguments, and the Justice's questions, this is all very speculative.

You forgot Kagan, and the obligatory jog over to NPR to kvetch afterward.

Anyone want to put money on the word "Russia(n)" ending up in at least one decision? Friendly reminder that the political appointment process is cancerous and we should switch over to a Japanese model complete with mandatory retirement.

the whole living document bullshit is one of the most jewish things i've ever heard

Nice trips.
Trump's ban was never a ban on Muslims or Islam. It was a restriction on foreign nationals from a short list of middle eastern countries. Jimmy Carter enacted such a ban during the Iran hostage crisis and it was constitutional.

There's plenty of precedent that allows the Court to read "discriminatory intent" into a law that is non-discriminatory on it's face. There is a 100% chance that argument will be used in opposing the ban.

The real question is whether either:
1) Non-citizens can be protected under the Equal Protection Clause / 1st Amendment OR
2) Whether the EPC/1st applies to ALL federal government action, regardless of it's direction towards citizens or non-citizens

I suspect if the ban is opposed by the court, it will be for reason 2 even though it contradicts a few holdings. The primary idea being that the Constitution and Amendments are not "protections for individuals" but "restrictions on government power". Ergo, you don't have to worry about being imperialist in giving foreigners protection. The focus is not on citizenship status, but on what the American government can and cannot do based on the principal of Constitutional supremacy and rule of law.
Basically, they'll determine that government is not allowed to discriminate, period, regardless of the target. And they might overturn provisions related to communist group affiliation and immigration too, since they're now old enough to be attacked by more recent precedent. Kennedy has proven himself to have a bleeding heart in the past.

I think it's bullshit, but it's a potential argument that might hold some sway with the conservatives.

So just to lay it out a winning opposing argument goes like this:

1. Country is founded on the principal of the rule of law, and the Sovereign is constrained by the Constitution
2. EPC and various Amendments means that the government cannot discriminate between persons based on race, religion, etc (although there are different standards for each)
3. Interpretations allow the Court to read discriminatory intent into an otherwise valid law
4. Trump's ban was targeted specifically at a religious group in it's intent (muslims, and somehow the ban supporting atty is unable to rebut this)
5. The government is allowed to control immigration, but not discriminate
6. Ergo, the law supporting immigration restrictions is subject to Constitutional restrictions and Trump's EO is invalid

The EPC contains a clause specifying that it is restricted to "any person under it's jurisdiction" though, so I'm not sure how the opposing side plans to get around that. But, somehow, the 14th Amendment applies to the federal government in spite of it's text, so anything's possible.

It's still dumb, though.

…do we even have that concept in American constitutional law? If even exists, I would have thought it would declared to vest in the People.

Ah yes, the death scream of emotion-based argumentation.
Gas yourself, kike.

Not that user but heart attack guns are a thing. Tiny needle that dissolves with enzyme that denaturates. No traces other than a sting.

...

Trump is a dumbass.

This is the exact same Supreme court who has sitting judges who's demographics benefit from affirmative action rule in favor of it.

The SC is going to rule in favor of the nonwhites.

...

The sovereign's power derives from the people ("We the People… do ordain and establish") but the law rules.

Basically, the people make the king, and the king is not above the law. So therefore, the people are "in charge" of the government but the government is also constrained by the law. Don't think about it too much, it turns into an oroborus. So we elect the sovereign within the boundary of our processes and laws, the sovereign can change or shape the law to the extent allowed by law but not outside it, while remaining bound by it, and on it goes.
It's really just a tool to avoid concentration of power and/or tyranny. It's also why the Supreme Court is supposed to keep it's nose out of politically sensitive cases, to allow the democratic process to set the law where it is uncertain.

The law itself has a hierarchy that goes (roughly): treaties (yes, really), the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, federal law, Circuit Court precedent, State Supreme Court precedent / state law, District Court precedent / local law, [contracts and other written instruments].

Regulations and regulators have the power of the body they derive from (federal / state). My understanding of Exec Orders is that they are roughly equivalent to regulations and the power derives from the President's enforcement powers.

Things get weird/technical below this line

Contracts are a bit wonky in the post-NAFTA and New York Agreement era, because they are essentially enforced at the will of the state but are also given certain powers by treaties. So if you use iTunes, Apple can use the New York Agreement to force you into private arbitration in Venice, Italy and that will be binding and enforceable in New York, USA. And in arbitration the powerful party can choose whatever law they want to apply, which isn't usually something Citizen X can do in their day-to-day. So the law of your state might protect you, but Apple can throw this treaty at you and subject you to the law of another state that Apple likes better. Afterwards Apple can then make your state enforce that ruling. So exactly where the legal power of the contract derives from now is a bit tricky, and decidedly not my area of expertise.

Technically the States are supposed to be mostly sovereign but we have the Commerce Clause, spending power and diversity jurisdiction along with a bunch of other bullshit that means they aren't in many cases. There's no federal common law (federal courts can't make law, just interpret it), although federal circuit cases make important precedent that frequently sway state courts.

And the state still has immunity in certain cases, such as tort, because they aren't subject to those laws.

It's kind of a mess that usually takes at least two law school courses to sort out.
And sadly, most people don't understand how much of their power was whittled away by the rise of treaties and the Administrative state over the last few decades.

Other lawfags feel free to correct.

here's your shekel

Thanks for the detailed reply, lawanon. I appreciate the info, as I am uneducated in this regard.

Yes, I was thinking of the preamble when I said that.

…and this was my disconnect. I conflate king and sovereign. We don't have a king, so I presumed we would use a different term for governmental authority.

Keep spreading that truth, user. The left has considered using things like the UN convention on small arms as a treaty that would effectively nullify the RKBA/Second Amendment by virtue of this fact. Also, it's far easier to ratify a treaty in the Senate than to pass an "nullifying" amendment for the 2nd. maybe we can form a treaty with Philippines under duterte to allow RWDS despite anything else in the constitution

Wickard v Filburn blackpilled me on written constitutions in countries where the law is ultimately interpreted by the government. In their ruling, the Supreme Court asserted *not* engaging in commerce on one's own property in a single state was "interstate commerce" and thus under the purview of federal control in the constitution. Logic/mathfags know that if your proof construct contains an assertion that "A AND NOT A = TRUE", then the proof is logically broken by the fallacy and the broken proof can then be used to "prove" literally anything. Same concept applies here, as we've seen over and over again for the past 70+ years, most recently egregiously with Gonzalez v Raich and (concomitantly) US v Stewart.

We need to revoke the Supreme Court's self-granted power of judicial review, especially as it has become a political weapon. An alternative model to constrain the government to abide by the constitution needs to be implemented, and this power must vest in the people. Even holding national referenda on key decisions would be better than what we have now.

50/50. The constitution and US code is pretty fucking clear on this. People saying "muh freedom of religion" haven't even read the amendment, and seem to think that banning a group of foreigners on foreign soil is somehow infringing on people in the united states from freely practicing religion.

HOWEVER, the problem is that the whole concept of judges being beholden to the constitution is a fucking farce. They're not. They don't need to make any real justification. They can just pull anything out their ass and it sticks, and the only way to override them is to go to a higher court. And SCOTUS justices are the highest authority, so they can say what the fuck they want and there's no accountability. The whole system is bullshit.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor (read: the 3 kikes and the spicy latinx) will rule it unconstitutional, even though it clearly is. I have confidence in most of the conservative judges upholding it. it all comes down to whether Kennedy cucks or not

Also, if it DOES get shot down, I hope Trump responds by implementing a total shutdown on all immigration, period. Can't say it's discriminatory if everyone is shut out. And that's actually be better, because it wouldn't just mean no muzzies. It'd mean no pooinloos or niggers or latinxes either. And it can be played off by saying "well I wanted to only ban these countries, but the courts forced me to be less discriminatory, so now I have to ban everyone. This is YOUR fault, libcucks"

Leftists hate this idea, because then none of their progressive bullshit would ever go through. Look at how they REEE'd in california several years back when their referendum on fag marriage failed to pass because all the niggers and mexicans they love so much weren't having any of that progressive bullshit. They need judicial activisim as a way to top-down force people to submit to their marxist bullshit.

Classic Marxist tactics are pincer movements where they attack issues from both the top and the bottom at the same time, forcing the middle to cooperate – even though the middle outnumbers them when combined, the effective social pressure of this tactic gets them what they want.

It's an infestation that will never go away, like bed bugs, and the only way to rid yourself of it is to throw out the top and the bottom and burn them to ashes then gas your entire home to make sure they don't come back. And even then you must forever remain on guard because some nigger might bring a bug infested pillow into your home and you'll have to repeat the whole process again.

Reminds me of people who say they don't like politics and don't really pay attention but still hold their opinion over everyone else.

I'm no Marxist but this is how we legalized DUDE WEED opposing the (((cops))) and (((pharmaceutical companies))). Referendum from the bottom, SCOTUS (Conant v. Walters) at the bottom.

...

It's what he should have done in the first place. A blanket ban on all immigration until we get our domestic shit in order.

That's why I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, the current EO isn't good enough, but it's a start. On the other hand, having it shot down could give way to a true total immigration ban. But even then, I still don't want SCOTUS to shoot this down, because it's set a precedent that it's now unconstitutional to prevent shitskins from entering the country, which is total bullshit.

Weed was legalized by referendum in several states and SCOTUS and USG has no power over it.

Mass immigration and gay marriage were opposed by referendum several times. If snivel rights and miscegenation had gone to referenda, they would have been smacked down.

The Supreme Court hasn't made an important popular decision since Plessy v Ferguson clarified that segregation in government services is constitutional. Desegregation, by contrast, meant individuals had to let niggers on their private property.

Cannabis isn't as popular with ancient Aryans as booze, but it's attested in some archaeological records.

I support banning Mexican cannabis and the wall to keep drugs out.

We can grow better stuff ourselves.

People wanted cannabis banned because Mexicans were bringing it in, calling it marijuana, and using their civil rights and the rights of women to be independent to hang out with Aryan women, getting them high, and having sex.

We needed White sharia and to expel or segregate muds. But at least they were banned from using drugs to entice our young women.

Which they still do.

We need White sharia and to expel or segregate muds.

Thanks for outing yourself, shill. We'll kill all stoners and kill you, too.

Top kek I laffed

1. There is no right to enter the US at all.
2. The FA means what it says, not "literally any statement that vaguely alludes to religion".
3. It applies to Congress, not to the President.
4. Trump didn't even ban Muslims, he banned people from certain countries. You still can still enter the US if you're a Bosnia Muslim, for example.

Why don't you read the actual words, as they're written.

If they can make them obey… but that's redundant, since the can enforce any decision by simply making people obey.

They only have as much power as people give them. If the President said that he'll disregard the SCOTUS tomorrow and the Governors followed him, the SCOTUS couldn't do shit. The average National Guardsman will hardly storm airports and shoot TSA agents out of his own volition.

He did say he liked andrew jackson… (:

Jump in an oven, crypto kike

Reminder that you do not have the right to enter the country.
Reminder that the president can ban anyone from anywhere at any time for any reason.

EXPEDITED

archive.is/sOOkE

OH SHIT

...

Can someone explain what "expedite" means in this context? Doesn't it mean they're going to work faster on it?

It seems like its going to move ahead in terms of priority. Essentially, its cutting to the front of the line.

I think that's a good sign, because they could just drag the process out if they were being uncooperative. This shows cooperation. That, or they want to shoot it down ASAP.

It's good news. The Supreme Court only hears a certain number of cases every year. They choose which cases to hear, in those they don't the decision made by the lower courts is upheld. Not only did they choose to hear the case, but they moved it to the front of the line so they can make a decision on it as soon as possible. The only reason they'd do this is to get Trump's ban in effect faster; if the court were anti-Trump they'd have pushed it as far back as possible to delay and antagonize the administration. The expediency makes me confident that they'll rule in Trump's favor.

100%. It's within his constitutional rights as President and the court is 5-4 conservative.

It is clear but the angle the left is coming in at is that Trump is doing this because of religion. Then they go into some bs about how the 1st amendment now applies to non-Americans. Then they say that Trump asked for a muslim ban on the campaign trail. Then through some autist gymnastics, the left says that this EO is a muslim ban even though reading it would prove 'em wrong.

Hopefully the Justices aren't retarded. If they side with Trump, the left would probably start calling for SCOTUS impeachments.

"shooting it down ASAP" expedition wouldn't make any sense considering that it's on indefinite hold until the SC overrules the 4th and 9th cucks.

...

Human beings are the only species who hoard their dead.

They literally pretend it's a boat user. I wish I was kidding.

Fuck all lawyers.

The president has the power to block ANY CLASS OF ALIEN. Non-Americans are not privy to the first amendment.

We'll see :^).

…on paper. Kennedy is a swing judge. He's the reason we have national fag marriage, for instance.

That much is clear. Just as it's absolutely clear that the government does not have the right to infringe on the ability keep and bear arms. And yet, they do just that.

How? Because of talmudic bullshit where they make up whatever excuse they want. Because here's the secret: SCOTUS justices don't actually need to base their arguments in the law. There's literally no way to override them or call them out when they're pulling some bullshit, except another group of SCOTUS justices later on.

Look up Sotomayor's statement from 1-2 years ago where they upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action. It's clearly against the fucking law and violates the civil rights act. And yet, her dissent was literally "well I'm a spicy latinx who only became a judge and a SCOTUS justic because of affirmative action, so I think it should stay :^)"

No seriously, go look it up.

That could go either way. Sometimes fast isn't always good. It could be a quick decision to uphold the lower court rulings.

The Supreme Court has always upheld the 2nd Amendment. Go look up how many Federal gun laws have passed in the last 100 years. However, you also have to remember that States have rights, which is why Louisiana can be "open carry without permit" while California is "you can't have a gun unless you chop off your hands so you can't use it."

With the timing of the terror attacks in London it seems likely that the travel ban will pass

Maybe the UK should be added to the travel ban list.

That doesn't quite make sense, because the effect of delaying a SCOTUS ruling would be that the lower courts' ruling would remain in place. So if they agree with the lower courts, they'd really have no reason to hear it quickly.

That said, the danger here isn't whether or not this EO in a vacuum is upheld. The issue is precedent. If they reject this, it basically sets a precedent that the president is no longer allowed to selectively choose who comes into the country, despite it being very clear that he should have this authority. They reject this, it's potential it becomes completely 100% game over because we're now no longer allowed to reject any mudskins. Precedent is fucking bullshit like that. One shitty ruling gets used as the basis to springboard a second even shitter ruling, etc etc etc.

So there is mildly a danger here, but the fact that they choose to expedite seems to indicate favorability to our position. Although I don't know the actual process on how the court decides to see or expedite a case, so I don't know. They could've easily just rejected seeing the case if they wanted to uphold the lower court ruling

if it doesn't get passed, then we pretty much know the law is good and dead in this country. The judges have literally no authority here

embed related

Yeah, for now. It's not just important to look at the final result of rulings, but of individual justices. DC vs Heller was 5-4. Same with that other more recent pro-gun ruling (I forget the name). The point I'm making is, these things passed with a SLIM MAJORITY when there wasn't a damn reason they shouldn't have been 9-0. The fact that even ONE justice is allowed to rule against gun rights means there's a serious problem going on here.

The states have rights regarding things not explicitly outlined in the constitution. 2A clearly says shall not be infringed. That doesn't just mean the federal gov't can't infringe, it means the states shouldn't be able to either.

My thinking is they want to rule on it fast because Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is knockin' on death's door. I mean, she's little more than a living skeleton at this point.

I know. I ain't arguin' the 2A. I think we should have national open carry; but that's going to take a Federal law and/or a new Amendment to clarify the 2nd.

the scariest thing is that if Hillary was elected they would have had the power to kill the 2nd overnight.

Thank god for Gorsuch

Aye, that's another possibility. She's a walking ghoul. Then again, these kikes have a habit of being able to cling on to life for as long as they can. No way ginskike is lasting through Trump's 8 years though. Breyer and Kennedy are around 80 right now too, along with Thomas getting old and wanting to retire. The sooner all these dudes retire/die, the sooner they can all be replaced by /ourguys/. Theoretically, we could have SCOTUS stacked 7-2 with a lot of fresh young judges by the time Trump leaves office. Only Sotomayor and Kagan left.

It wouldn't do enough to stop the demographic replacement and all that shit, but at least it would stop them from targeting free speech and gun rights for a few extra decades. And 1A/2A are what we need if we're going to redpill people and arm them for the coming race war.

I'm not saying you're anti-2A. I'm just making a point that the fact that we don't have national open carry and the fact that individual states DO have bans/restrictions and that we DO have shit like the NFA/hughes amendment means that 2A isn't being followed, because our justice system is bullshit and there's no actual accountability from judges other than higher court judges. Until you eventually get to SCOTUS, who have no checks against their power whatsoever, other than "lol wait for them to croak and try again, maybe"

"sort yourself out"

I know. This is a tangent, but it's what pisses me off about the blackpill faggots who are constantly harping about Trump being a ZOG shill and saying that he's just a release valve, and that the TRUE white nationalist would have voted hillary in order to cause "acceleration".

I'm not saying Trump is perfect, but this is the dumbest fucking shit I've ever heard. Electing hillary would not have led to acceleration. She was going to implement hate speech laws, mass censorship, and take away gun rights. She would've done everything in her power to prevent the seeds of revolution from ever blossoming by cutting off our access to non-controlled news/information/data as well as preventing us from communicating with each other. And simultaneously, taking away gun rights would just mean that we would all be cucked and wouldn't even have the ability to fight back even if we wanted to. She would've absolutely stamped out any hope we ever had of winning.

Trump isn't a release valve. He IS the accelerationist president. Just look around and see how the center of the political spectrum is eroding away as everyone polarizes either left or right. It's happening.

I think if any of the liberals, (((Breyer))) would be the most likely to vote in favor. There's no way any of the others would but I would love to see the reaction that the libshits have when one of their liberal judges decides to not tow the line. It would be even more lulsy if Ginsburg was so fucking senile that she decides to support it. The salt from a SCOTUS victory from the travel ban would be one of the best things this year.. Kennedy might cuck out but the four conservatives at least will support it.

I lived to see the day the leftists were in favor of spreading American values worldwide through force. Well, if this is the case, let's be sure to enforce, on threat of war, the 2nd amendment to all peoples worldwide as well. I know a little place right near Israel that is just teeming with people who could use some airlifted automatics and grenade launchers.

Terrorists can stab half the cockneys in London.
The judges will not care.
Trump's ban will not be allowed to interfere with the profits of the 1%

It wouldn't do enough to stop the demographic replacement and all that shit, but at least it would stop them from targeting free speech and gun rights for a few extra decades.
Wrong. A simple majority in Congress is all that's required to pass a law changing the number of supreme court justices. Dems get majority control of Congress & the presidency? *bam* Now we have a 17 member supreme court with 8 brand new hard-left justices.

Hi, user. Welcome to this timeline. Here we had the Supreme Court ruling of US v Miller where the Supreme Court set precedent that federal gun control laws were totally constitutional. In fact, this was the *only* second amendment Supreme Court case until Heller in 2005… and it was a big "fuck you".

"Amusingly", in Miller the court held that the NFA was constitutional because it restricted arms that were *not* used by the militia/armed forces–i.e. that if, say, the short barreled shotgun in question were equipped by the militia then it would be unconstitutional to restrict it. Yes, you read that right. So next time some dem goes off about "muh sporting purposes" and "muh weapons of war", you can remind them that the holding was that RKBA protections were ruled to be limited to military style arms *only*. So, per Miller, I have a constitutional right to a select-fire M-4, but not necessarily to a 20 gauge duck shotgun. of course, the feds always have pursued the "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to our rights, so that's not how it works in practice

Lawanon can probably further elucidate the applicable case law.

Having 2nd Amendment rights doesn't mean someone's going to hand you a firearm. I'd love to see mandatory national high school classes in firearm safety and training and then issue every mentally able man a rifle at graduation; but that's just a pipe dream. The 2nd Amendment is a right, not an obligation.

Interestingly enough, thats where my mom learned how to shoot in the 70s. Her high school had a ROTC class where you shot in a range they had made in the basement of the school.

This is why I am also a big proponent of the BSA, despite the things they have been laxed on, since they still teach gun safety and innawoods stuff.

How are they presenting the 1st being applicable to non-americans?

As I understand it, anyone on US soil has all the basic rights that the rest of us do, even illegals. Though that does not excuse illegals from being here. I propose a new amendment where we are able to send them back in those pumpkin chuckers.

Post yfw a retarded humanities major or random shitskin tries to lone-gunman one of the conservative justices, but gets the youngest liberal on the Court instead.

The deal is that, once you get onto US territory, you have all the rights an American citizen does (except for voting). This is because of Equal Protection, which is easily the dumbest part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Outside of the US – at a foreign airport, say – none of the Bill of Rights applies and we can drone strike your ass at the ticket counter if the President wants to.

Of course, in the strictest sense, the Constitution says whatever five justices say it says.

Of course of course, the Supreme Court has no army, so it can go and fuck itself if there's ever a serious disagreement.

Gavels vs AR15s would be an interesting fight.

Hey retards; I have a best idea for you. ACLU has summer jobs available. It would be a shame if some of you were to apply for a job and fuck shit up. Just sayin.

Pretty funny, huh? It was only a decade ago that the left was protesting Bush for this exact reason. I almost feel nostalgic for those days when the left at least pretended to have coherent principles.

yup. the retarded part of the 14th amendment that allows anchor babies. Problem is that the EO is preemptive; stopping people from coming based on religion is constitutional, removing people from the country based on religion is not.

NO. ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN LEGAL.

Read Ann Coulter's Adios America for the specific legal documents. I can't quote them right now.

I don't agree with it and I think it should be re-written to require American parents, but it still is technically legal.

Again, you misunderstand the writing. It ONLY confers citizenship to freed slaves because they had been born here. Everyone at the time knew that and wrote about it, just like the Federalist Papers explain EXACTLY what the Constitution meant at the time of its writing.

Yes, the original intention was for former slaves but the writing makes it possible for anchor babies. We pretty much agree. I'd add a clarification for the current year that puts an end to this spic shit.

I swear to Jesus if the Supreme Court shoots down the Travel Ban at this point then we can all safely say the conspiracy is very VERY fucking transparent

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent5.html

Al Franken wrote a clarification bill in the 1990s. He almost presented it and it would have easily passed, but then he found out that spics vote Democrat and he didn't.

This plus the affirmative action ruling are why he was killed. There's no doubt.

In the 1990's Al Franken was still LARPing as a shitty comic. He was only elected in 2008.

They'd have to argue that the Constitution and Amendments are not intended as personal rights or protections for individuals, but rather as restraints on government action. If so, then the status of the person being protected as citizen or non-citizen is more-or-less irrelevant.

Two part test: 1) is there government action, 2) does it in some way violate the restrictions set by the Constitution? Then you have the ability to apply the 5th Amendment Due Process in this case regarding the suspect class of religion, provided you can show discriminatory intent in the EO. I don't see how they can get there without all of that. And the 14th would still be out-of-bounds because it only restrains the States and not the Fed.

I don't think the 1st really applies here, but I suppose it could be argued. I doubt the opponents of the EO really want to go there because of the precedent set by the Peyote case. The court is squeamish around this kind of stuff, read "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a case in point.

It'd be a pretty big deal if they hold what I'm suggesting. It likely creates too many messes for the conservatives to accept even if it might make some of the originalists happy. And the military/IC would shit a brick house. (Muffled IC in the distance: What!? What do you mean we need a warrant to search *Xi Jinping's* computer network!? Have you lost your goddamn minds!?)

Why the fuck are mods deleting posts?

>law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Based user, I was looking for that.

The president can constitutionally ban any admission from any government or religion he doesn't like.

The president can constitutionally remove any judges who violate the constitution in their rulings.

This ends now. Either they rule with the constitution or they're getting removed, and hoooooly fucking shit what a removal process that would be. Trump just needs to say the word and 60-70% of the population will pick up a fun on his orders.

Good start but not enough. You have second gen turdskins in londonistan for example. They're """"British"""". Now what? From link:

(F) Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

Now, just classify all of Islam as a terrorist organization. Unlike cuckistan, most Americans still fucking hate muslims because of nyan eleven and aren't gonna hesitate to admit it. Liberals have only taken the cuck cities and universities. Just show some nyan eleven footage and even normies get bloodthirsty.

Doesn't work? (i) In general

Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

Sharia is functionally a totalitarian party. Blamo presto.

Still need more?
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general

An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

The constitution is the highest order of law in this nation. Any law that violates the constitution can and should be removed. So technically speaking, anything that violates the second like shitlib gun bans. We haven't been enforcing this, but we can. We can. We have the legal grounds to do so.

REICH WING LEGAL SQUADS

No, that would violate the separation of powers. Impeachment of a judge requires Congress, just like impeachment of a President.

How fucking new are you.
archive.is/FfTO1
archive.is/O3Ib8
archive.is/JcTsE

If the supreme court doesn't rule in favor, then Aug 21st will ruin them and everyone else for sure. They'll be between a rock and a hard place.

What happens then?

...

Like pottery tbh

What does a bunch of /sudo/ threads about "plz remove mods" have to do with Trump's travel ban?

He was replying to a post about mods deleting posts. Its not on-topic, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

You are not white and never will be.

Learn how to read.

It's not even a good answer to an off-topic question. The answer is in big black bold letters at the top of every page. "I broke alacrity". Holla Forums mods can't break alacrity.

If the justices follow the constitution it should be 9-0, but traitorous dems will vote against. Very likely 5-4 in favour of Trump.

That will add a psychological barrier.
Illegals coming up to the wall will see its base littered with human remains.

what I've seen on twitter:

"if you block them they will get angry and attack"

how the fuck will they attack if they are not in the country? the left is so fucking stupid

(((They))) have zero qualms about murdering people that stand in their way. Blocking kingniggers SCOTUS pick is the only good thing republicans have done in the last 20 years. We would be well and truly fucked if clinton won.

...

Thing is, First Amendment restrictions don't even apply to the President.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Legislative Branch is not the Executive Branch. "The First Amendment applies to all branches of government" is a meme. Don't fall for the meme either and miss the obvious about the First Amendment.

I just graduated from law school also, but at a Catholic School

Quit doxxing yourself brotha

t. also at a Catholic law school

Checking those double dubs.

God hates a coward

Jesus Christ, you were in Harmon's class?

(checked)

Seems like you two need to link up and fight the kikes with your law degrees.

If you ever missed it, Harmon was given this as a present in my 1L summer.

Nah, I just remember you saying it all the time

God hates everyone. Creation is a crime against the created.

Who are you?

Check your school email

ANUSES AND ECZEMA

I have never known another person to who is on 8/pol/, and the answer to both your questions in the email is, yes.

You can't meme on me hard enough. Find another knife.

I'm right and you know it.

If you two catholiccuks don't do anything worthwhile, I'm going to be proven right. Just so you know.

We need a bit of time user, I've only just finished school, and the bar must be passed first.

Whatever. There is no time. There is only Eternal Misery. I have ideas too. I'm just honest with myself about my chances and the way things always go.

It also doesn't help that your god hates me and my life has always been shit. But you can ask around here. Everyone mocks me in some way that you can pick the basic tale up there. I'm not expecting any of these posts to stick around.

Tell me about the voices in your head again, Asses and Elbows. What do the voices say about your mother?

Does this normally happen? The president going directly to the SCOTUS and asking for a ruling?

What?

The same thing they say about everyone. Why do you act like you give a fuck? You can't meme on me. There is no knife sharp enough that you can drive me off with. Do you get it yet?

I'm still right. You still know it. Are you going to come kill me or not?

pastebin.com/Ush6huDi

Read this and Cringe Harder.

Appealing to USSC since the 4th Circuit shot the ban down. I see no way that it can't be upheld given what the law and precedent says on the topic. Some injunctions are directly appeal.

It's a nihilistic shit poster who identifies himself with the catchphrase "Ashes and Echos." He's a literal schizophrenic with crippling mommy issues. Fucking with him and making his condition worse is the best course of action.

Your mother. Tell me about Mother. I really want to know.

I'm not a nihilist, you fucking retard.

Nihilism believes that there are no gods, and that there is meaning. I'm saying there is. It's just not for us. The universe doesn't exist for us, it exists for the gods to torture us in. The meaning is that they rule us and hate us and we suffer for it. That's it.

Nihilism it is not. More like Dystheism.

You don't really want to know. I've already said anything that can be said about it. The rest is just waiting to happen. And you're still going to have to find a sharper knife, if one exists. I know you don't care. Stop acting like you care.

And again. I'm right and you know it. Everything is shit and you know it. You can never drive me away and you know it. You don't really care and you know it. You only ask about her to try and trigger me and you know it.

And it doesn't work. I'm always like this. You know it. When are you going to track me down and help me hang myself?

That's great, Aristotle's Soft Erections. Truly great. It really is. You obviously have everything figured out and are smart enough to know that. But why do you never talk about your mommy?

I want to say that super fat kid k e year ahead of us was a polack. He baneposted irl in a class with professor Perez and joked with me about killing commies. Otherwise it's you and me mang, although like I've been trying to stress to you, guard your screen and hide your fucking power level.

Because I already have. You're baiting something. And you're not getting it.

We've went over this already. Nobody cares, there's nothing that can fix it. Do you get it yet?

No, it's not great. You're lying. There is nothing else to say about her or anyone else in my life. They're just as damned as I am. They suffer just as much as I do, just in different ways. Going blind, brother wasting away each day. Nothing improves. I keep getting ideas that I can never get off the ground because I'm just not good enough. All the usual.

And I know you don't really care. So, there's nothing to talk about. Are you going to help me kill myself or not?

Do you get it yet? We know we can't drive you out. Because we want you to be here. You belong here and no where else. Do you get it? You're still here because we love you. Though my time is short and I have to leave soon for the rest of the day, okay? Hopefully mommy can learn to love you as much as we do.

You. Fucking. LIAR.

Nobody has ever loved me. Stop lying. Nobody has ever wanted me here. STOP GODS DAMNED LYING. I do not belong anywhere.

DO. NOT. LIE. TO. ME.

There is nothing else. You're lying. You're trying to find a sharper knife, that's all that's ever happened. Nothing else can ever happen. I can't get anything else. I can't see anything else. I can't hear anything else. I can't think anything else. THE VOICES WON'T LET ME.

Oh good. Asses and Elbows and smiley have arrived. Time to unsticky and let it die.

You do know ID's, right?
You missed out and are either too lazy or want to be spoonfed from looking up the significance on what happens on aug 21st and what it's supposed to be a sign of

I'm not the best about the screen guarding the Hitler in the bottom right makes it even harder. Power level is always a bigger pain in the ass, so many in school who I wouldn't bother speaking around, couldn't be trusted. If only they knew the extent of it.

I
LOVE
YOU

Smiley? Which one is smiley??

You're a liar.

It's a sign of bad things. What else ever happens?

YOU
BELONG
HERE

Liar. You're not getting anywhere. There's no way. Stop acting like you give a shit, nobody believes you. Least of all, me. Everyone has always hated me, that's how life is.

...

Yes, I am from around here. But, you probably don't know that because you're a positivist faggot who thinks that anything in this reality or any other would ever be on your side.

I knew the extent of it and honestly it was your lack of opsec that kept me from self identifying to you. It is a thin line between that russian hockey chick busting your balls for "muh forr-chan" and an administrator calling you in for being a literal fucking Nazi. I would say it's different now that you will be a professional but honestly it will be only worse. Datamining of every social media account they can find, at the least…

Anywho, like I said that fatass one year ahead of us I'm convinced is a channer, other wise just the two of us. Honestly I'm impressed just by the posts you made in this thread, you have a pretty solid grasp of both Chan culture and geopolitics. tbh irl you came off as a dunce

I on the other hand am a supreme underachiever, mostly due to being so fucking caught up in this game right here. In the last couple years I authored baby bane, friendly zombie, and the original fire money thread that's my fucking meme and it feels fucking great . Im working on other shit right now most of which is not chan related, though I will shoot you an email later about something real juicy I got turned in to irl.

Ah, so you really do belong here.

Stop lying. You can't compliment me, that's lying.

You don't care. You never have. Nobody ever has. Stop lying. Are you Smiley?

Somehow, you two make me hate the world even more than I already do. Fucking lawyer cunts.

Yes, I'm Smiley. But you think I'm also a liar. So no, I'm not Smiley. Or am I? Who really knows?

Doesn't matter. You're worthless. Everyone is. Nobody has ever wanted me around and all of life has always been torture.

There is nothing else. The nightmare is black and the windows are painted.

jesus fucking christ, take your RP'ing off here with derailing the thread hard, goddamn faggots

user, I don't know you, but you're obviously in distress. Have you considered getting medical help? There are good anti-psychotics and maybe anti-depressants. If you don't like them, you can also consider less heavy stuff like CBD (cannabidiol) and NAC (N-acetylcysteine) that have shown promising results in treating schizophrenia.

I'd like you to get help, user.

You know, what ever happened to your catchphrase? You said people weren't memeing on you, but they clearly are if you stopped doing what everyone knows you for. What happened to you, bro?

She busted me out to Leary in Crim Pro about "Supporting the Trump the rapist too". On campus I didn't worry about much, expect for professors, usually just talked stupid shit with the the Asian guy, who I'm sure you know of who I speak. We were never sure who could be trusted on things so we would talk about serious stuff outside (downstairs) or off campus. I just read and outlined and didn't care about much else.

Fire monkey was you, damn that's nice. I'm interested in what you're working on, shoot me an email of what you're into.

Ann Coulter (a lawyer) has repeatedly claimed he has authority to do it as commander-in-chief and could simply ignore the courts, I don't know if that has a legal basis though. Perhaps it doesn't and she's suggesting a "the court has ruled, now let them enforce it" Jackson move.

There is no medical help. None. All shrinks are too expensive, they're all Marxists, Jews or Marxist Jews. They all hate white men. They cannot help. All shrink pills are poison, none of them work. CBD is degenerate. NAC is degenerate. It's too expensive and cannot be acquired in Alabama. I don't trust them or you. I'd rather just be dead.

There. Is. No. Help.

There is only Eternal Misery. I can't think anything else. Everything I make is hand to mouth, and every effort always fails. I'm always in distress because my life is shit and every effort always fails.

Ashes and Echoes

The same thing that's always happened to me.

I hate my life and want to die. There is nothing else. Stop acting like you care about me. Liar.

AND AGAIN

There is nothing else. I can't trust those things and having tried CBD, it doesn't really help. And of course, I can't afford it at all. There's no money for help. Everything is hand to mouth and all moneymaking ventures always fail or never get off the ground because I can't get funding and nobody would ever support me and I could never do anything right in my entire life otherwise I already would have.

Ah, much better. But why did you start doing it again at my recommendation? That's also "being memed on", bro.

Not really, it's called going with the flow of conversation. I also used it in other threads. But, keep thinking that…

Doesn't matter. Nothing is ever better. Everything is shit and you know it. Nothing can ever be good. Life is filth.

Hail the Midnight Lord.

Stop saying bro. We are not friends. Nobody has ever really wanted to be my friend. I don't know why my IRL hangouts tolerate me at all…

Tell me about the Midnight Lord.

I made a huge thread about immigration and legal status, about this a month ago. There is no reason Trump can't do what he is authorized to do, he should ignore the court since it was an absolutely unjustifiable opinion and the court even said that if it were Hilliary they'd be fine with it. Not to mention SCOTUS has said that political campaign rhetoric is not to be used when it comes to actual interpretation.

But he is doing it "the right way" because that makes him look like the good guy while the left will continue to look like fools. It also goes to show many (most) people in the USA, that the courts are politically motivated, and that Clinton (Bill) did the federal courts a huge amount of damage with his many judicial appointments of women and non-whites in the 90s, many of whom are judges to this day. Then throw in the judges that Obama appointed, mixed with the judges from Reagan and Bush 1 dying (or dead) and the few from Bush 2, and you've got a losing recipe.

There's nothing to tell. You should already know about that. It's just a phrase. It's part of the screaming. It's an expression I use to surmise the universe. It's a torture chamber. If you know your Pathfinder RPG, you know what that refers too.

Tell yourself about the Midnight Lord.

There's nothing to tell. You should already know that.

Do you get it yet?

Oh yes. Definitely.

There are things that can be done to curb the power of jewdicial activism. Judicial review is far too broad, and local judges shouldn't be able to claim standing to challenge national immigration EOs / laws. I hope that Trump's ultimate plan is to do something about these problems, after getting enough of the public on his side through calling attention to their jewish tricks.

Liar.

Watch what happens.

I'm not telling you to go to a shrink. Just go to a doctor who'll prescribe you some anti-psychotic. You don't have to listen to some 2-hour lecture on microaggressions. You just need to take some Risperidone/Haloperidol.

Don't listen to the idiots on here who call literally everything degenerate. CBD isn't weed and it doesn't get you high, but it's an anti-psychotic. You can get CBD oil legally.

It's an over-the-counter mucus-dissolving agent that you can get for less than 10 dollars. It also doesn't get you high in any way and it has known neuro-protective effects.

Oh well. No one can drive me off either. We are stuck together for eternity. I still love you, and I will always hope you find what you're looking for. Good night, Midnight Lord.

There are no doctors like that. And again: No money. Everything is hand to mouth. I can't get anything, because I can't get prescribed anything. And if you talk to a doctor about this kind of mental shit down here, you get fired from your job. This is Alabama.

No, you can't get CBD oil here.

No, you can't get it. I don't have the money. Hand. To. Mouth. I don't trust it. I'd rather just be dead. I'm too tired to try anything else for it to just NOT WORK again. I tried CBD up in Boston last year, it didn't work there for long enough to be worth it. I can't… I just can't try anymore.

You're a liar. Nobody has ever loved me. Nobody ever will. There is no way to find anything good.

Shit, man, aren't doctors bound by confidentiality? Just say that you're having an appointment and don't mention the details. Even if someone were to find out what you're taking, you can say that it's a mood stabilizer (Risperidone is given for bipolar as well).

No. You're not. I'd end up getting confined because I'm suicidal, and if that happens, they have to tell my work that I'm under a psychiatric hold. At that point, they fire you because you missed work. We're an At-Will Employer state. And a Will to Work state. You have no job protections if you're a white male.

In Alabama.

So no, I can't get any kind of help because I'd have to be honest with the doctor. Being honest with the doctor is going to get the cops called on me because that's what they do down here. It'll just ruin my life to be even worse than it already is.

Well shit, man. I feel sorry for you.

What about NAC? Have you ever tried that? It's not a miracle drug, but it's quite cheap and you can get it over the counter.

Also, have you considered moving to some other state?

I have. It doesn't help. Nothing helps. And no, there is no way to move to another state.

Where would I go that isn't full of libshits? What job would I do? Where is the Safe Avenue of Retreat for when it all fucks up and I have an episode somewhere that nobody knows or gives a fuck about me? What then? Oh wait, it collapsed because I'm the only one holding the household up and if I move away, there's nothing to go back to. And not only that but there is no money to move away, everything is hand to mouth.

I've looked into it all. There are no options. Every Effort Always Fails and because of that, any attempt to try anything will only fuck my life up worse.

Don't be. It's Fate. Nothing else has ever happened to me.

Well, take care in any case. Not that it means much, but I wish you the best.

Don't. Lie.

And I can't take care. There's nothing to take care of. It's just more misery. There's no best to wish. It's always bad, nothing else ever happens.

demoralization shilling 101
:^)
^

Whatever. I'm right and you know it.

I'd love to stay and help you earn more shekels but I have shit to do, ari
*sips tea*

Whatever. I'm not paid for posting. You would know that if you were from here.

Alright alright this is seriously my last reply, I know you get paid by the amount of (You)'s that you get so I have to be very conservative with how much I reply to you, I'll let you in on a secret: you are shit and you will never blend in, ever.

Come on, I'm just trying to be nice to you. You said that nobody has ever been nice to you, but when somebody makes an attempt, you call them a liar. You see how that isolates you from people?

Well, what would I have to gain from setting you up? I don't even know you you.

I just sympathetic to you because I've visited a mental hospital a few times and I see how mental illness can fuck up people's lives.

In all seriousness, this is probably the one place you do belong, as cliché as it is, we are all one, so don't off yourself. If you're going to off anybody at least make it somebody who would make Holla Forums happy that you did it.

I read the entire pastebin post, FYI*
I don't think I've ever seen you post in a thread before or recognize any of this either.

There are no gods.

I know it's difficult for you, but try to look at this objectively: what's more likely? That literally everyone in the whole world is hostile to you or that you THINK that everyone is hostile to you? You'd have to be a pretty important person for everyone to hate you.
There's a lot of shit in the world, but it's not 100% bad, 100% of the time. Some people will be nice to you and they'll try to help you. It happens.

If the gods are evil, why do you want to worship them anyway? We might as well disbelieve in them.

I believe in you, user.

So when the fuck are they going to start kiking this shit in court?

This week, I'm sure. Patience, user. It's Sunday and courts don't meet on Sunday.

Unrelated but why has Adolf been replaced by a big titty american qt?

FPBP

Adolf was put up on April 20th for his birthday, and they change the picture fairly often.

Just ignore the muh degeneracy shills. The same faggot think traps arent gay. Good reminder to hit my hash pipe.

...

thread repair bump

Bumping a stickied thread.
Lurk two years, faggot.

> >thread repair bump
What is Alacrity?
Why? You haven't.

STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW
STOP MAKING THREADS ON DONALD TRUMP HES WITH (((THEM))) NOW

:^)

Hm.

Yes, but transitivity applies, because the executive branch isn't allowed to make its own laws – its job is to executive laws that the legislature passes & are enacted. So, if the executive is using authority under a law passed by Congress to, say, abridge freedom of speech, then it would seem that either the president is acting outside the bounds of the law *or* that Congress made a law that allowed freedom of speech to be abridged. If it's the former, then it's unconstitutional for obvious reasons, and if it's the latter then the law implicitly violated the first amendment.

Now, if the president is acting using a power granted via the constitution rather than a law made by Congress then it would seem that the amendment wouldn't apply. inb4 'muh living document', but also recall that judges don't apply the law like a CPU executes an algorithm, either

Lawanons would be more authoritative on this, though.

what the fuck is wrong with you people

>>>/out/

I do think Gorsuch would go against Trump, but only if what he was going against the constitution. The ACLU's argument that the judges should not look at the order as written, but instead look at what trump said while campaigning probably isn't going to fly with a person as strict as Gorsuch. We will see.

Which is fucking stupid on multiple levels. It's completely irrelevant what Trump thinks, and that's also ignoring the fact that an outright muslim ban would still be perfectly 100% legal. The president has the power to ban any group of foreigners he wants from entry. It couldn't be written more clearly.

And the claims that it's "anti-1A" don't understand what the first amendment is. For one, banning muslims from entry doesn't infringe on the right to freely practice islam within this country. Foreigners on foreign soil do not have constitutional rights. And even if that weren't true, the first amendment says 'Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom to practice religion. It doesn't say anything about the President.

Not so much worried about the ones trying to get in, but about the ones already here. But then again, it's not really muslims doing the ((("terror"))), now is it? There are so many ways into the states without official verification. Not to mention the teleporters..

I don't really buy that particular argument for reasons expounded here:

Well, there is no real argument about the ban. It's just (((THEM))) throwing a wrench into any plan Trump makes.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that banning muslims doesn't infringe of the rights of people within america from freely practicing religion.

Trump is going to lose.
Courts don't operate on laws, they operate on social consensus.
The media have spent the last 6 months demonising Trump's travel ban as racism / anti-muslim.
They have given the judges the cover they need to overturn the ban and the president's authority and be praised for it.
The views of rural or suburban retards, or heterodox legal experts do not matter. Only applause at expensive dinner parties matters.

Anyway, if they side with Trump, the Supreme Court will be accused of being Russian spies.

If the SCOTUS does what you're saying they'll do it will foment tremendous civil unrest. Michael Scheuer recently wrote a blog about how he believes Anglo-American rebellion is likely unavoidable at this juncture. I would tend to believe what he says. Perhaps the SCOTUS are arrogant enough to think that they can disregard the travel ban with no repercussions, or perhaps they see what Dr. Scheuer sees as well and will not risk the prospect of an open armed conflict swelling up in response to their blatant disregard for the law of the land. We shall see, won't we? Either way you should be keeping your powder dry.

The SCOTUS is pretty kiked-out, but even this would be a huge stretch that would only serve to show the nation how utterly fucked this whole situation is.Even moreso than the fag marriage shit, because the law specifically says Trump has this power.

Also, if it fails, we need to do outreach and meme Trump to do a blanket ban on all immigration. All of it. Which would actually be even better, because it'd mean no indians or mexicans or anyone else either. And they couldn't claim it violates the first amendment or any of that crap if it bans everyone.

Not like whites are allowed to immigrate here anyway.

Stop shitposting.

Whats up with this shit? what does "watered down" mean?

lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=watered down

it means they made a few changes that trump doesent like

It means that since Qatar has been shoah'd by the UAE, Qatar needs to be be added tot he travel ban.

Fuck all these limp dick lawyers and chickenshit bureaucrats!

Forgot video

Fox just showed a story today showing Ginsberg's prior comments against Trump and how it should be could be used for her recusal (like, that's going to happen - i.e. fag marriage). It's just what (((they've))) been planning for - wait for Ginsberg or any other libtard jewstice to recuse him/herself and let the drama play out to a 4 - 4, or if Roberts cucks out again, a 5-2 decision.

Hence, the 4 - 4 decision means that the 4th Circuit's decision stands.

Did you forget there were two versions of the travel ban? After they knocked down the first one, he issues a second one that was slightly altered (removed one country and some other changes), and then they shot that one down too. The one that the DOJ is submitting to the Supreme Court is the second one, but Trump thinks they should use the first one.

checked. It doesn't really matter which one goes through. After SCOTUS rules on it - and hopefully finds it constitutional - it gives him precedent to ban whichever countries he wants. He'd be able to sling out a bunch of EOs banning this that and the other country.

I don't understand what you mean. How would libkike justices removing themselves from the case be bad for us?
It's either going to be 4-5 or 5-4, depending on whether Kennedy cucks.

ahh thanks user
Wasn't it only a 90 day "temporary" ban also?

user, its the executive's job to enforce the law. The judiciary's job is is interpret the law and decide is something is or not legal.

If Ginsberg is forced to recuse herself, we're fucked. It'll be back to before Gorsuch was confirmed for this case, so a 4-4 tie means (((they've))) won by letting the 4th Circuit's decision to stand.

…that doesn't make any sense. If ginsburg doesn't recuse herself, it'd still be 4-5 against his ban.

She won't, like I said in my previous comment. She and Kagan were actively presiding over fag marriages in Maryland before that case went to the court, and she bullishly held a presser stating she wouldn't recuse herself in that case.

It's going to be between Kennedy and Roberts to see if which one or both would cuck out from the two of them imo. I agree with you, it's going to be a 5 - 4 decision in our favor if it's a victorious one.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean. Are you saying that if Ginsburg recuses herself, Roberts or one of the other fence-sitters will use it as an excuse to 'show how moderate they are' and fuck Trump over, but if she doesn't, they'll follow party lines and give Trump a 5-4 victory? Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you hit your head and forgot to do math.

...

This. Expecting Ginsburg to vote in favor is retarded, nothing can be lost by getting her to recuse so we should be pushing for it hard.

It has to do with "discriminatory intent." If they can't prove the law is discriminatory on it's face, then they have to show that the intent behind it was discriminatory. Hence the relevance of Trump's statements. It goes to the 5th Amendment Due Process claim, which is arguably the only one that can be reasonably raised. Under it, religion is a "suspect class".

But, is also right about campaign rhetoric. I don't think they've had to consider it with an EO before though, which would give them opportunity to weasel out. And they'd still need to find statements where Trump is being openly anti-muslim, as opposed to anti-terrorism or dog whistling.

And these laws are why the opponents are going to fight this as hard as inverting the whole Constitution. They know those laws are on the books. Trump could have started there, but obviously he wanted precedent behind him first. Those statutes haven't been used since the height of the Cold War. The Supreme Court can be pretty nonchalant about over turning older laws seldom used.

This decision really ought to be 9-0, and I suspect the dissents will be long on feels and short on law. What would need to be done to repeal the ban is so dramatic I can't foresee any of the conservatives approving. But the liberals can't get on board, so they'll write preachy insubstantial dissents.

5-4 Trump, media spends the month quoting Sotomayor's dissent and talking about how brave she was in standing up to the white male conservatives.

ETA

user, we've already established that anyone anywhere can be labeled an enemy combatant and lose every right they have. This applies to Supreme Court Justices as well. It doesn't matter if you're a willing conspirator, a brainwashed goon, a useful idiot, or just fucking stupid, if you're working for the enemy to put America at risk, then you get a nice trip to Guantanamo Bay.

Plaintiffs don't have standing.

the eclipse

That's just downright pathetic man.

Jesus Christ the bureaucracy of this nation is fucking pathetic.

someone on Twitter said they just ruled in favor, can anyone confirm?

Trump's son
One of us

link or gtfo

They haven't even begun to discuss it, or even decided whether or not they want to. This is the last we're probably going to hear on this case for several weeks/months.

it's been deleted, guessing it was either a fake or just a template that got posted early somehow

If he was one of us, then he wouldn't have been bawwwing about "m-muh daddy" when Griffith did her little "art" piece. He would have manned up and had a thicker skin. Just because you shota faggots want him here doesn't mean he is here.

He's an 11 year old autistic kid you dumb nigger, of course he'd get terrified if some deranged liberal manfaced cunt held up some crude, bloodied "reconstruction" of his dad's head. Just because he's from a rich family doesn't magically make him any quicker to desensitize than we are.

is this that toxic masculinity I've been hearing so much about or are you just fucking stupid

This. The (((Murdochs))) have been shilling this hard the past couple days.

foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/05/gregg-jarrett-justice-ginsburg-must-disqualify-herself-in-trump-travel-ban-case.html