i don't have much to say about this, but there's one thing that is clear:

it's trump's usa now.

A supreme Court that's divided between party lines. Might as well have whoever is President be the Judicial branch.

Efforts to increase security, a stronger economy, tax cuts, and hopefully continued reducing of regulations... this is truly that dystopian/fascist future the media warned us about with no hyperbole.

Meanwhile the dems are pushing open borders, higher taxes, and kicking republicans out of restaurants? I gotta admit the dems really understand what's important to the ham and eggers.

This is the tolerant "left". You either agree with us or we will ruin your life mentality. Bill Maher wants a recession that will hurt American families in order to get rid of Trump. 

Lots of people have been arguing about the 'constitutional merits' of this ruling. I think they might want to take a step back and recall that this same court also just recently upheld the right of for-profit institutions to deny service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation, along with a number of other "interesting" decisions that all but invariably favor the Republican Party's positions. The same court also voted the same day that church-established fake abortion clinics cannot be required by California state law to disclose the fact that they do not actually provide abortions despite falsely advertising that they do in order to trick women out of getting them. (For perspective, there are currently three times as many fake abortion providers in the United States as there are real ones remaining.) The U.S. Supreme Court is likewise expected to issue another pro-Trump/pro-Republican ruling today, for that matter, that will even further erode the right of workers to organize and maintain labor unions because why not, a whole 10-11% of American workers are still unionized and that's just way too extreme and pro-labor a situation to have.

Besides the curiously one-sided recent history of U.S. Supreme Court rulings since the appointment of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, one may also consider the purported national security merits of this verdict. Namely, it may be worth pointing out that not a single one of these countries being targeted has yet produced a single terrorist attack on American shores. To me, this fact suggests facetiousness on the part of both the Trump Administration and the Supreme Court here. On the other hand, though, some of the countries on the list are currently overflowing with aspiring emigrants and refugees due to situations like civil war, drug-traffickers taking over major cities, etc. etc., so there are lots of survivors in need of asylum. Methinks that the current administration and their crony court simply don't want said situation to produce an expanded ethnic and religious diversification of this country, in truth.

The motivations behind this policy strike me as similar to those behind such policies as the administration's concurrent, now-infamous "zero tolerance" border policy, the decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Accord on climate change and the UN Human Rights Council and the imposition of across-the-board tariffs. There is an isolationist tone and tenor to the Trump White House and to the attitudes of its various stooges that logically goes along with their authoritarian, elitist politics that consistently favor the interests of dominant social classes (business owners over workers and customers, men over women, straight people over gay people, citizens over immigrants and refugees, religious and ethnic majorities over religious and ethnic minorities, etc.).

That's my opinion. There will be a nationwide demonstration this Saturday in protest of this and other "interesting" Supreme Court rulings of late and the administration's "zero tolerance" border policy. At minimum, hundreds of thousands are expected to attend. I will be there too.

5 out of 45 muslim countries affected and 2 non muslim countries.

these 5 countires have no verifiable way to check the passengers. therefor, they do not get to go.

faux outrage once again. next leftist manufactured crises please.

Makes a false statement, changes statement next sentence.

We get it, you don't like Trump but the adults who bought their children with them illegally knew the risks. They're directly responsible for their children. Trump isn't.

I believe the photo was what we call symbolism.  Meaning, they put a crying baby into a picture with Trump standing and looking down with no compassion as a symbol of what this administration is doing.  Did anyone really believe they stood together to take this picture?

Symbolism of lying maybe. They made a "correction" after the dad told on them which means either they lied about the situation the photo was taken or were wrong about it.

The times cover is nonsensical. The girl wasn't being separated from her mom and Trump isn't to blame for it. It's just a convenient club to hit Trump with even though the law was enacted during Clinton's presidency, ignored by Bush, changed during Obama's presidency so the kids are separated from the parents.

Yes, and Republicans are egging any restaurant that have the name of Red Hen in it's name, or making death threats to people not even affiliated with the restaurant or even in the same city or state.  Yes, republican are sure showing they how classy they can respond.  I guess if a baker doesn't want to service a gay couple is ok then not serving someone because of a political view has to be wrong.

First let me ask, how is Trump making the economy stronger.  Lets see how these Taffif pan out before you give him that credit.  Tax Cuts, let see how that will pan out as well.  The Cuts are suppose to spur the economy so that we have a GDP over 3%.  This is suppose to basically negate the cuts hit to our deficit.  People did say that corporation were going to just buy up their stock with those cuts which will not be a net gain in the growth of the economy.  Reducing regulations.  I always wonder why people consider this a win.  You do know why regulations were put into place.  It was because of people like Trump, who would take advantage of something and then we had to regulate them since it was detrimental to either us the consumer, smaller business or the environment. 

Lets take the Clean water rule that Trump administration decided to halt.  I am sure there are people who would say, yeah, that was a bad rule from Obama because it put restrictions on farmers, ranchers and builders on the materials they use that could pollute streams, lakes etc.  So Trump administration put a halt to that rule because its business first for this administration.  Lets get rid of those pesky regulations that business have to adhere.  Next we get a report from the CDC on America water and streams and find how polluted they are because people are so concerned about giving business the ability to pollute or streams.  Oh, lets not forget Trump administration and the leaders within the Republican party wanted to get rid of class action suits on financial institutions.