I realize the cognitive dissonance you need to employ to continue supporting Trump is complex and dizzying, but that is not my problem at all.
4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
You still don't understand.
That statement
Do you understand what not looking 'behind' the face of an EO means? Means you can't look back on what he has said, because then what's stopping you from going back 10 years, 20 years? Should we go back and pull up what he's said while in college? You must take into account what was said AFTER he took the 'oath of office' and not campaign rhetoric from 2015.
Of course I can look back at what Trump has said before. 10 years, 20 years ago he wasn't a political candidate and was not POTUS.
As I said, your cognitive dissonance is complex and dizzying - to you. Let's look back a scant few months to January 2017, after he had been elected:
As I said, your cognitive dissonance is complex and dizzying - to you. Let's look back a scant few months to January 2017, after he had been elected:
You can absolutely, but the SCOTUS surely won't. As far as the statement Giuliani made, that is something they will most definitely weigh in on in Supreme Court. He has repudiated his statements since he has taken oath on many occasions.
Courts have ruled repeatedly that not only can they"look behind", they must. I provided two supreme court rulings on that topic up thread.
Most of the Jim Crow laws that were designed to prevent blacks from voting never mentioned race.
No that's a distortion of the law.
Supreme Court case of Kleindienst v. Mandel. In Mandel, a collection of scholars demanded that the U.S. grant a non-immigrant visa to Belgian Marxist journalist. The government had denied him entry under provisions of American law excluding those who advocated or published "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism." Make no mistake, the First Amendment protects the right to advocate or publish Marxist doctrines every bit as much as it protects the free exercise of the Islamic faith. Yet the Supreme Court still ruled against the Belgian journalist:
The meaning is clear. If the order is supported by legitimate and bona fide reasons on its face, you simply don't go beyond the document. By that standard, the executive order is easily and clearly lawful. On its face, the order asserts a legitimate and bona fide national-security justification. On its face, the order isn't remotely a Muslim ban. On its face it doesn't target the Muslim faith in any way, shape, or form. On its face it describes exactly why each nation is included.
Discrimination on the basis of religion isn't legitimate or bona fide so that doesn't apply.
And there is nothing in the Constitution protecting Marxism. There IS a specific prohibition on enacting laws relating to religion.
Nor did the Jim Crow laws that were designed to prevent blacks from voting mention race. However in both cases the public statements made by those who proposed the laws did mention prohibited grounds. The courts have ruled repeatedly that these purposes must be considered to determine whether the purpose stated in the law itself is a sham.
Soupy isn't bright enough to follow legal arguments. As far as he is concerned, Trump is a genius and a messiah who has been betrayed by "leftie, activist judges" who should be sent to prison for not doing what the president ordered. No matter how many times you explain to Soupy what the law is and why the judges reached the decision they did, he will be incapable of understanding what you say, due to his intellectual limitations. And he will get angrier and angrier and more and more obsessive.
Oagre and Fuji are like two little peas in a pod. Fuji will always quote someone who has him on ignore even though he knows that poster won't see it, & oagre puts members on ignore and then can't stop talking about them. Go figure! They're a match made in terb heaven
I've already made my point. The 3 dissenting judges have made their points. It's off to SCOTUS. Going in circles one again.
The court will look into lots of aspects of the law, but in this specific regards you are just wrong: judges can and do consider whether the stated intent is a "sham secular purpose" disguising a true prohibited intent. The Supreme Court has done that many times, such as in striking down the various Jim Crow law which always purported to have some other intent.
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban
"President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.
The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine Court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump's March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening."
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-revive-travel-ban.html
"President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.
The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine Court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump's March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening."
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-revive-travel-ban.html
I find this whole "discriminatory" silliness as the basis for the decision by the Left Wing Judges,...absolutely ridiculous,...the law is directed not at the population of the US,...but the population of other countries,...
A really good example of the total lack of logic spewed by the Loony Left in what ever capacity.
Fuji, give up. You've been doing this for pages. The argument goes in circles. Fast and Soupy are too stubborn to agree with you and don't understand your arguments anyway. You aren't going to change that. This thread is now a waste of your time. Put them on ignore and use your time more fruitfully.
