Forums - Politics Discussion - Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban on Mostly Muslim Countries

Ruling was 5-4.

I think the ban is unnecessary so imo the SC is in the wrong.



Around the Network

Well seig heil to you to, Mr. "president".



Well, they claim that these countries that he banned, don't have proper security screenings for those who travel from them, so I think it's rational that something like this is put into place. That being said I still think overall it's a bit harsh.



Ljink96 said:
Well, they claim that these countries that he banned, don't have proper security screenings for those who travel from them, so I think it's rational that something like this is put into place. That being said I still think overall it's a bit harsh.

Still doesn't excuse all of Trump's groping, mocking war heroes, racism, corruption, slander and child abduction.

Way to go America, you literally elected Hitler.



jason1637 said:

Ruling was 5-4.

I think the ban is unnecessary so imo the SC is in the wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's unnecessary (which I believe you're in the wrong), the question before the court is if the ban is constitutional.  Considering the 4 against had to center their choice based on shit stated during a campaign versus the actual policy written down, I'd advise people to consider the wider context of this decision before saying "oh this barely got by!"



May 2020 Articles:

https://www.darkstation.com/reviews/doug-hates-his-job-review (Doug Hates His Job Review - 1/5 Stars)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/443538/daymare-1998-xone/ (Daymare: 1998 Review - 4/10)

Around the Network

The job of the court is to determine if what is brought before them is legal or constitutional, not to decide right and wrong. And for better or worse, US law gives the president extremely wide powers in this regard.



coolbeans said:
jason1637 said:

Ruling was 5-4.

I think the ban is unnecessary so imo the SC is in the wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's unnecessary (which I believe you're in the wrong), the question before the court is if the ban is constitutional.  Considering the 4 against had to center their choice based on shit stated during a campaign versus the actual policy written down, I'd advise people to consider the wider context of this decision before saying "oh this barely got by!"

Most people don't understand the law, or are to quick to jump to their emotions.

Yesterday on Facebook I saw a post telling about how this Jury in SD convicted a gay person to the death penalty instead of life in prison, cause they thought he might enjoy prison being gay. People were going off in the comments about how horrible America is, and how these jury members should be harassed, beaten, ect.

1. The post leaves out what he was guilty of, which was of killing a man execution style at a gas station or something, so it was either life in prison or Death penalty.

2. Jury's do not pass the sentence, but just the guilty or innocent verdict. The sentence is up to the Judge.

Same with SC. People need to realize that basically all they ever do is decide if lower court rulings are constitutional or not. This is not about them agreeing with Trump or not. They are just stating that what he did was within his power and not against the law and thus should be upheld. It means that no more random Hawaii/California judges can pop out of the blue and say its unconstitutional and block it.



CaptainExplosion said:
Ljink96 said:
Well, they claim that these countries that he banned, don't have proper security screenings for those who travel from them, so I think it's rational that something like this is put into place. That being said I still think overall it's a bit harsh.

Still doesn't excuse all of Trump's groping, mocking war heroes, racism, corruption, slander and child abduction.

Way to go America, you literally elected Hitler.

Not worth getting banned over my initial post. I beg you, go read a book. read Mein Kampf then maybe you wouldn't throw around bullshit like this

Last edited by melbye - on 26 June 2018

Nothing to see here, move along

CaptainExplosion said:
Well seig heil to you to, Mr. "president".

I understand that you abhor him with all your being and you've made your point clear in other posts as well. 

My question is what do you hope to gain by going there? It is a lazy argument that lacks historical context, it will not convince someone who voted for Trump that they made a mistake by demonizing him, and it belittles the seriousness of the actual conversation this OP is trying to have. Immigration has more nuance than the racists vs open borders fringes. 

I don't care if you hate Trump or me for voting for him, but you are doing a disservice to your own cause. Argue the merits (or lack of) of his ideas. Not the man himself lest you fall under his trap. Trump specifically and intentionally says outrageous things to get an overreaction from the other side. 

 



CaptainExplosion said:
Ljink96 said:
Well, they claim that these countries that he banned, don't have proper security screenings for those who travel from them, so I think it's rational that something like this is put into place. That being said I still think overall it's a bit harsh.

Still doesn't excuse all of Trump's groping, mocking war heroes, racism, corruption, slander and child abduction.

Way to go America, you literally elected Hitler.

Well, at least we know what you read when you were younger. 

@ OP 

Good. If those countries aren't up to snuff on their checks, we shouldn't be accepting people from there. I'm guessing this still allows religious minorities who are persecuted to enter. 

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 26 June 2018