Bitcoin Forum

Trump just put forward his executive action on the Travel Ban, and as we all know the first one faced legal blockade from the 9th circuit of Appeals. Instead of Trump going forward and making an appeal up to the supreme court (Without a clear majority) he went forward and changed a couple things on the executive action and put a new one in order.

Jeffrey Toobin, one of CNN's senior legal analysts and contributors feels that the 2nd time's a charm for Trumps executive action, and I will have to agree with the Very Fake News organization for one of the first times in my life.

What do y'all think of the fate of the Travel Ban?


Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/opinions/trump-travel-ban-toobin/index.html

Well, I think it's the same shit on a different day. We still aren't targeting the countries that actually produce terrorist (the US and Saudi Arabia. I shit you not. When I found out we actually produced roughly half of the guys we pop for terrorism, I shit a brick). I feel this is the case because Trump has financial interests that he does not want to piss off. It targets people for religion still, with prettier words. Since we founded the country in the pursuit of religious freedom, I think it's bullshit. I know alot of you hate Muslims (despite the fact that most of us don't even know one), but if you want to paint all followers of Islam with the same brush, then do so. Don't treat the ones you like different just because you make money with them. Be an asshole unilaterally, I say.

Compare Snopes (we can all agree this is an  unbiased source):
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/14/countries-terrorists-come/

With this (more statistics specifically on Americans that engage in terror):
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/

The second source is seeming non partisan, you can check the credentials of each of the researchers on the bottom of the page (everyone is pretty experienced, and you can't really lie about this, it's a matter of public record that is easily fact checked.)

So why are we focusing on those particular countries, that don't have Trump towers, when the countries that are the problem (and have Trump Towers) are ignored? The numbers don't lie.

An efficient way to get the job done don't you think?

Anyone who wants to find a job that's looking for her, and those who do not want to work he is looking for reasons why he can't find work.

I don't disagree with that.   I know what our status was under Obama / Hillary re Saudi.  Obama bowed to the Saudi king, and Hillary would have followed their every suggestion regarding the US making war in the Middle East.

I do not know what Trump's stand on Saudi Arabia is.

The Trump administration announced the maximum transition to the US to use its own energy resources and to rid the country of dependence in foreign-made oil. And this means that Saudi Arabia will suffer unequivocally.

I always have suspected that behind the push for things like "green energy," meaning windmills, solar and such, there was ....
...the Saudis....

Because they know that striving for the fantasy of green energy will in the real world, keep a country dependent on Saudi oil.

Similarly, I have suspected that behind the long-standing anti-nuclear power factions in the USA there was Saudi funding.

That's all coming to a screeching halt.  It would seem.

Firstly really feel pity to those muslim country
Its good to banned those country for prevention but really need to care about other muslim country maybe they are good but also being banned

The saudis role in global oil market is becoming less and less important because their oilfields have been spitting out watery oil for a while now. When the well dries up, they will disappear.

First, it is important to understand whether the work agreed in November restrictions on the volume of production, and whether the current regime to continue until July, as originally planned. It should be noted that the price of Brent crude oil stabilized in the range of 54-56 per barrel for a long time and do not leave it outside. This is approximately 15% higher than before the November agreement, but still more than 50% below the highs of three years ago. So, will oil go up or we have already reached the ceiling price?

Let's start with the facts. Three things are obvious: By and large scheduled reduction target has been achieved, but the figures vary greatly from country to country. Three producers - Algeria, Venezuela and Iraq - have not reduced production, or reduced less than promised. Outside OPEC, the map confused Russia. The country seems to be reduced production, however, according to the latest reports, the total volume of production and exports of Urals crude oil increased. The other parties to the agreement adhere to quotas, and Saudi Arabia even exceeded the plan, reducing production to less than 9.8 million barrels per day (almost 300 thousand barrels below the agreed value). If not for the Saudis, OPEC has not fulfilled the plan.

I guess Trump has learned his lessons that you dont call bluff of the same system you rode to power and the moment you have power you become untouchable no it does not work that way. Even if the court had allowed it public opinion will not allow it pass and what that means is that the presidency has ended even before it began. The new one I guess will have been thoroughly looked into and considered the constitution matters sited in the one thrown into the trash to come up with this and I think it will fly.

Targeting Saudi Arabia will be a strategic mistake. Considering the amount of investments done by the Saudis in the US, antagonizing them will be suicidal, both economically and politically.

Now after America was going to sell oil interests with Saudi Arabia disperse. America can reduce oil prices on the world market. It is quite possible that they will be competitors. This is an economic war.

Note that "target" oil prices are set by the Saudis and their cartel, not the USA.  The USA simply responds and produces in response to price and demand.

Now oil is falling in price why Saudi cartels even American to increase the pressure on the market. He will drop down.

Totally agree. If you think about it a lot of terrorist are already in America because they're from the same country that's banning Muslim countries. Really Trump! Doesn't he have anything else to do than pick on Muslims. I heard his mother was also an immigrant. So I don't have any fucking idea what's he thinking. This travel ban part 2 is just the same shit as the first one.

No matter how much crude oil the American frackers can produce out of the shale formations, the US will remain a net importer of crude oil in the long term. And that means that at last in the crude oil sector, there will be no competition between the US and the KSA.

The us reduced their net crude oil imports from 70% to less then 25% in just 10 years through fracking.
Should oil prices stabilise around 50+ $ oil independence is realistic.
Just google trump and US oil independence.

What this translates into is American free market in fracking broke the back of a world wide cartel that was doing a fairly good job of rigging world oil prices.

Odd anyone would be crying about that.

In the U.S. not only has shale oil and conventional oil. Besides, Trump was going to sell strategic oil reserves. In any case, this should lead to a drop in prices on world markets. Let me also remind you that China's economy is also beginning to decline.

Selling the strategic oil reserves may be a bad idea. They are meant for emergency use in case of warfare or natural catastrophes. And even if he decides to sell them, there will be only a temporary blip in the prices. After 6 or 7 months, the prices will be back to $55 per barrel.

President Donald Trump plans on the travel ban is not done randomly but there are major economic reasons behind it. Trump in his one month of being a president has lessen the debt of America by 12 billion dollars compared to Obama who increased the debt of America by 200 million dollars in his first month. By looking at this fact we can determine that the travel ban was a part of Trumps plan whose after effects is the continues increase in US dollars value recently.

The high price of oil is not profitable in the first place for the exporting countries. The higher the price, the more profitable to invest in alternative energy. When you find technology way back will be gone.

Thank you. We were in bed with them since the Obama administration, it's too late to hop out and hurry home at this point. Despite 911, Obama was beyond reluctant to allow legal liability to pass to Saudi Arabia. He PRA tically begged Congress not to allow SA to be legally culpable for one of our most agregious attacks at home beyond Pearl Harbor. With that being said, I see the same ass kissery in the Trump administration, specifically with the reluctance to list SA as one of the 'banned countries' included in the Muslim ban (it's a Muslim ban. Be real). Anywho, I don't really agree with banning any country from visiting the US (visitors = money and stupid to ban an entire country because of a few citizens.) If we are gonna ban a motherfucker because of state level reputation, then start at known antogonist, like NK or RUS.

The reduction in federal debt was an amazing and unbelievable achievement. Check the link below for the proof from the treasury department:

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2017&endMonth=02&endDay=21&endYear=2017

But the media refused to cover it, as a result of their hatred towards Trump.

Oh no, the media certainly covered it. It just wasn't the accomplishment that the right wing media made it out to be. Observe:

http://www.snopes.com/media-silence-national-debt-trump/

I could point out multiple mainstream sources, but nah. And just wait for Trumpcare to strike. Those numbers are going to look mundane after we take the tax brunt of these wonderful reductions the wealthy will experience. And I'm not even talking about actually income tax cuts, just Trumpcare. We won't even discuss corporate and elite actor tax reductions under the Trump administration.

Drain the swamp indeed.

Fortunately, you are not in charge of who to ban.

Although there might be some merit in banning motherfuckers.
:)

LMAO.

Don't be so quick to dismiss RUS though. I see we formally charged two FSB agents and a foreign Russian national in the Yahoo intrusion. The liberal media doesn't have to try too hard to tie Trump and Russia together,they just seemingly, click :)

And  I see Team Trump is starting to stratify over this one (wiretapping claims). Sessions said no, Senate has said no, only Comey is left. It's kinda funny, for something that was meant to be a misdirectiin, this turned out to be a giant glowing beacon pointing more at Russia than the Obama wiretapping thing. And it was a silly plow. A quick read of a modern civics textbook could have set him straight before he made those tweets. Those marvelous, marvelous tweets. Keep em coming, 45.

This would be popcorn worthy, if I didn't live here, dammit :)

Nothing out of the expectation. The mainstream media as usual, tried to take the credit away from him by giving silly excuses. Had Obama done the same, then the media channels would have celebrated it for at least 10-15 days non-stop.

Debt ceiling reached.
Trump is indeed not jesus :(

Trump is really not an angel, and he will not act like Obama, but the main thing is that the new president does not use this quality about which everyone knows and understands that he is exactly this and not another.

The travel ban will not work at all, The best option is to stop the inflow of these immigrants from coming is at the Embassies, Its a waste of time trying to ban them with executives orders.

The travel ban will not work simple because it's connected with nationality and religion of people, and don't deal with the real problem, how to prevent real terrorist to enter America.
Basically Trump clams that all people from this 6 countries are dangerous for America and possibly terrorists, but he can't prove such claims or share any evidence or facts. Only fact is that they are all Muslims and it seems it's enough for Trump and his government.
It's obvious that court will not allow such orders, based on prejudice and discrimination, not facts.
Trump needs to focus on how to find and stop the true terrorists, and they are mostly coming from America and europe, not Muslim countries.


 

The travel ban will not work, because the corrupt judges appointed by the Democrats are hell bent on blocking any legislation which will make the United States safer from Islamic terrorist attacks. Unless these biased judges are thrown out, democracy will be a joke in the US.

I think he should replace most of the pro Liberal judges, the one he feel will vote against him, He already sacked some of the judges why should he not just continue.

No, you just got used to living in countries where the will of the leader the law for judges. In America it is not. That is why America is a great country. Trump knows how to make America great. He's a stupid populist. All of his idiotic decrees will be blocked if they are contrary to the law.

I think Trump must not focus on these kind of stuffs, he must focus first on their budge and their national debt which are being a problem. I know that he is a business man, and I think he can handle this problem well, but it needs to comes first or it will affect the country.

Why do many people have the impression that Trump is a very good businessman? You saw him return? Except for the published media. It seems to me that he is not as successful as he is painted. Yet I do not see any good ideas in his head.

Replacing the judges is not that easy. If I am not wrong, in the US the judges are appointed for life. Their post will become vacant only if they die, or if they get impeached. And the latter option is extremely difficult.

Amen. Leave these guys be. If Trump can get elected and nit get impeached in the face of lunacy, surely studied legal professionals should get their 'day in court' (see what I did there?) Besides, do you really want the executive branch to be able to dismiss members of the judicial branch at will? Wouldn't that be a gross violation of separation of powers, kinda like what would have actually happened if Obama had tapped Trump's phone (see what I did there as well?l

Well..... that is the point. There must be a separation of powers. The judiciary must mind their own business and they should not interfere in issues such as immigration. Policies regarding immigration must be left to the government. It is the judiciary, which is overstepping here.

Nice alternative definition of seperation of power.
Trump apologizers Luls

LIVE STREAM: James Comey Testifies On President Trump ...
Video for live james comey testifies▶
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnLpe-gc6P8
1 hour ago - Uploaded by LIVE ON-AIR NEWS
LIVE STREAM: FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers are among the ...

Trump may have a made a mistake by doing things openly.

He could have ordered an unofficial travel ban as well. Visas for Syrians or Somalis have only been delivered on a case-by-case basis for years. Trump could have discreetly ordered to make the scanning process even more rigorous, actually blocking all demands, and nobody would have noticed.

while watching the congress  it seems to me that the rich can get away with murder    but the poor public servants can get 20 years in jail..

FBI CIA   Are payed shills by the AMERICAN RICH ELITE ..
And use our sons and daughters as cannon fodder to line their own pockets..

Oh and blaming Russia for hilary clintons downfall   :D

'Hillary's America' director D'Souza calls 5 Razzie noms 'petty revenge'
Video for hillary's america▶
www.usatoday.com/story/life/.../hillarys-america.../96969770/
23 Jan 2017
Dinesh D'Souza is taking great pride in receiving five Razzie award nominations for his anti-Hillary Clinton ..


Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States Prequel A - YouTube
Video for oliver stones untold history of the united states▶ 57:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZBRcdy7ndI
1 Jan 2016 - Uploaded by Colonialism
Link to Prequel B here : http://www.filedropper.com/oliverstonesuntoldhistoryoftheunitedstatesprequelb.


Alex Jones Bullhorns Bilderberg 2008 - YouTube
Video for alex jones bilderberg▶ 10:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytxHu4pz8ew
21 May 2009 - Uploaded by ListenToAlexJones
Alex Jones bullhorns Bilderberg in Chantilly, Virginia, USA



SO DID RUSSIA POST THOSE VIDEO'S ?....NO IT WAS YOUR OWN PEOPLE..

And thanks to your own people we know what the ELITE DO TO US SHEEPLE ;)..

That's why no politician is trusted in this day and age.. WE KNOW YOU HAVE THE KEYS TO OUR TAXES..

WHAT WILL YOU DO TO ROB AND LINE YOUR OWN POCKETS WITH OUR TAXES..

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY..

JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick - YouTube
Video for everything's a rich man's trick▶ 3:27:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
19 Nov 2014 - Uploaded by Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick
The who, how & why of the JFK assassination. Taken from an historical perspective starting around world war


James comey wont investigate the powers that be but will investigate the poor average joe..

PAYED SHILLS ..Your congress is a disgrace ..Only 4 or 5 worthy of their jobs..

the rest are payed scum bags ..A danger to the people

And if you think i am a russian spy :D

PUTIN IS ROBBING RUSSIA PEOPLE LIKE NO TOMORROW  ;)..

THEY ARE ALL AT IT >:(..The BILLION DOLLAR YACHT CLUB..

They are no good at making cakes  only good at robbing the nations wealth ;)..

The fact that you acknowledge that Putin is a thief still not clear you of suspicion. Just kidding of course, but the Russians spread their tentacles around. Now every news need to check under the microscope not to run into a Russian fake.

The fact that you acknowledge that Putin is a thief..  No it was Badecker who told me this news..

So To Mr PUTIN it was badecker..YOU KNOW JUST IN CASE ;D..Below

Brit businessman 'being targeted by Russian assassins who killed Putin foe with poisoned veg in his soup'
The Sun · 1 day ago :-*

Why should he do something like that? He is the president of the United States, and he is having the liberty to change and modify the policies regarding immigration. It is the judges who are overstepping their jurisdiction.

This is correct, but Trump must wait until Gorsuch is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and then go with a broad question to them:

Can circuit court judges trump an executive order of Trump?

If the question is not posed broadly, then these renegade judges can go time and time again, over ruling a President.

With Gorsuch confirmed and the Court then 5-4 instead of 4-4 as is current, then a decision can be rendered that solves this matter once and for all.

Even if Gorsuch is confirmed, it will be 5-4 in favor of the liberals (from 5-3 now). I would classify Anthony Kennedy as a liberal. To be more specific, Anthony Kennedy is a liberal wearing a conservative mask.

My guess is that the issue raised by the 9th court would be settled very quickly by the Supreme Court.  There was no legal basis for what they did.  There are obvious problems with an 8 member court which could possibly rule 4-4.

Notice they have largely left the challenges alone. After Gorush makes it in, suddenly, it will get appealed to the highest court in the land. I'm curious to see what else gets pushed to the court once makes it in (its pretty much inevitable at this point).

If there is no legal basis for what they did, then it should by 8-0 instead of 4-4. Oh... but then I forgot that liberals always modify the constitution and its amendments to their liking. I hope that Ginsburg will die soon. That will help in obtaining a conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

maybe ban is not a solution on that and not in that way ..Even if Ttrump  is powerful  in all countries.He would just make the law about it not in that way through ban.If that will happen,it would be affecting several people... Not in that way to travel ban,maybe he should make a policy so that it is not unfair to others,....

I'm curious.  You have a fairly opposite political view than I do.  Should any circuit court judge be capable of squashing a POTUS executive order?

Before answering, consider that POTUS can and will flip from one party to the other.

Of course they should. I could give a fuck if they were Green Party, it matters not. The executive order byoasses Congressional oversight, hence it should be subject to additional legislative scrutiny to compensate for this, and ensure no abuse of power. The parties all suck in their current iterations. Sponsorship must be removed from politics before this ameliorates. I want what is moral and right, with an emphasis on harm mitigation for all involved parties.

And, it really is unconstitutional as fuck, and pretty dumb to boot. Please explain to me how a ban of countries that don't terrorize us specifically is going to help our security. If Saudi Arabia had made it on the list, I wouldn't be typing this. Oh, and the passage giving Christians preferential treatment for refugee status. I'm Christian myself, and even I can see the problem with that.

Really?  Legislative oversight for a EO?

Regardless, legislative oversight here is substituted by Judicial oversight.  So my question remains.

Think about it.  Any of many judges, each with their own perverse ideas or dogmatic political ideas, whatever, should be able to over ride the President?

use empathy and ask yourself the same question. If Obama had used an  executive order to legalize abortion, would you want that to be irreversible? So to answer your question again, yes, a circuit court should be able to squash a POTUS executive order.
No piece of legislation should be permanent. People are imperfect and times change.

And, you know, Trumps shit was unconstitutional, there is that.

Unconstitutional?  Really?  Are you an expert on that?  At the bare minimum, have you read the 9th circuit case and do you understand the counter arguments?  If not, please don't pretend. 

Still, you miss my point.  There are 178 federal appeals court judges.

Give them the power to over rule a POTUS decision, whatever a POTUS did, some one or several of them could object.

This is a clear case of a category of issues that are termed "Constitutional crises," situations where there is a problem with the application of the US Constitution.

Not in its entirety, but yes, I actually have read the commentary. But I am far from an expert. Are you?

You sound angry man.

Please don't underestimate my intelligence, I respect yours. Priori statements by Trump associates fucked this for Trump, yes, I believe that statements of intent (is this is a Muslim ban) should reflect in judgements, as this applies to all other citizens (if I make ridiculous public statements concerning the civil issue at hand, of course it would effect judgement). Calling something a Muslim ban is a clear violation of freedom of religion. The primary fucking amendment. Your were saying, originalist? And I am merely illustrating the constitutional argument. We won't address the preference of religion, and lack of legal process denied citizens.

No crisis here. Your boy did a dumbass thing, and got called on it.

If the system was so broken, with all 178 judges, why has it only failed now, during a Trump  Presidency?

Your move.

And no more diirect ad hominems. Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.

Edit: oh, I mispoke earlier, meant judicial when I said legislative. Just reread, you pointed it out for me already. Appreciated  ;D

So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).

Was Nixon the most powerful person in the world, when he resigned instead of being impeached? No, the president isn't the most powerful person in the world. The Constitution was established to prevent just that, through separation of powers.

You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45  ;) Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference.

I've seen three or four guys admit being paid to post here.

Mind if I ask, who pays you?

The fine folks at Bitmixer. I can spew my partisan,  toxic, quasi liberal opinions, for profit, as long as I follow posting guidelines and quality standards. I implore you, since you post decently and have excellent rank, you should look into trying a Sig camp, if you weren't aware (I'm not being sarcastic). I was like, a senior member here before I figured out guys where actually getting paid to have those colorful banners under their posts. I'm slow, I guess.

But Naw, sorry to dash your hopes, I'm not an agent of Soros or Hillary, LOL. Just a dude with strong opnions, and a cellphone. But, I will admit I get a certain glee clashing intellectually with you guys. I need to get out more.

This got all crazy misquoted when you responded, you are bright, I have no doubts you will figure out how to read this.

What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents.

Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE."

Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled."  Pretty simple.

I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents.  So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.

I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.

I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.  

That's just plain wrong.

And I listened to you a lot less than any experts there, because recently they have been divorced a lot and each indicates that he understands more than the other. I understand politics as much as I really do. And I already encountered the right and the judicial system, and I'm very disappointed.

Age matters naught, only experience, friend ;) expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse.

And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation.

Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable.

Well, pursuing and eagerly supporting batshit crazy would have one predictable outcome.  I'll help you out a bit.  You are going to present an argument which I oppose.  Rather than discuss it logically I am at this time shutting you up because that's my "right as a minority of one." Just like the 178 circuit court judges.  You are now shut up.

See how easy that was?  See how wrong it is? Deal with it, dude.

LMAO, I'm getting paid son. This is fun to me ;) and I love pointing out how deluded Trumpism is, it's a pet cause I've picked up that I would do for free. It's my warm fuzzy, ala Paul Frank.

Honestly, man, you sound too lazy to defend yourself. You would disseminate your views for free, yet when challenged in a public forum, suddenly it's too much effort to defend yourself? Come on man, I have more respect for you that that, don't be a shit. You knew I was going to propose some shit you didn't agree with before I even started typing. I understand if you are having reservations about being able to defend your ideas.

You backed up like a bitch. Don't be a bitch, Spendulus. This is the second time you've done this.

First, let's establish if the affected party (as you are aware, there are a multitude of different classes trying this) has the right to claim damages. In the general case, that would mean individuals from the countries affected by the travel ban. In fact, are these people subject to protection under our Constitution at all given that they are non citizens? Case law says yes. Observe Yick Wo vs Hopkins. In this particular case, these Chinese nationals were procedurally denied citizenship. Admittedly, these were residents of California being denied citizenship through stature, not people living abroad. But the Supreme Court used that decision while forming opinions on Boumediene v. Bush. Hilariously, this case involves the lack of constitutional rights experienced by actual terrorists being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The Court found that, even when the president acts outside the borders, he lacks the “power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.”

OK, so hopefully we have established that the affected class has a legitimate claim, which seems reflected by recent Supreme Court decision. Moving on.

Under the First Amendment, there should be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The EO includes a clause which allows 'Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin.'. Let's look at that. As any war could generate refugees, humanitarian intent (good faith action) would entail that one would accept all refugees from an area, irrespective of religion, but respective of security risk. By specifically providing greater assistance to a specific religion, this shows favoritism, promoting the agenda of a specific religion. Because all the xountries he tarfetted are Muslim majoritys, the other side of the coin is that Muslims woukd not recieve "prioritized consideration". Damn that First Amendment. This seemingly would violate the prohibition against laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Also, by denying travel from countries that are majority Muslim, because of a 'security risk', seems to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" of Muslims in those countries as they enter our territory.

 If empiricism (statistics on terror and it's origins) were used to determine this list of countries, why was Saudi Arabia not listed? They literally did 9/11 (not Bush). While this is more a moral argument of mine than legal explanation, it leads me to my final point.

Let's go back to Wick Yo vs Hopkins. The Court pronounced that although a “law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,” if it is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” it will be evaluated accordingly. This is why I said many comments ago Trump was a dumbass for letting his cohorts run their mouths about his intent. Gotta be slicker than that. Anywho, we have the progenitor of the ban, the POTUS, calling it on record a Muslim Ban. Let me repeat that, it didn't sink in a month ago when you heard it. Muslim Ban. As in, hey, are you Muslim? Banned, bitch.

Despite the guy that wrote it calling it a Muslim ban (yet you don't think it a Muslim ban, because those are unconstitutional, right?), yet another Trump surrogate, and author of the EO, claimed it was a Muslim ban. In fact, let's quote this dumbass:

"I'll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'"

"He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'"

So, we have an obvious bad faith action, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Guilliani.

After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause

BLah blah blah.

No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay."

The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant.

Now how you like that?

I love it man :) your reluctance to address my argument, kmowing how intelligent you are, vindicates me a bit. Becuase I see you are upset, I apologize, and I will disengage you. Disregard my argument. I saw that I was bearing down on you, yet I persisted with my argument for its sake despite your feelings. People first, bro. I failed at that, and for that, I am sorry, and do apologize to you, sincerely.

Anyone else is welcome to address it however, in the spirit of progress.

To illustrate your bat shit crazy even better, let's assume that you wanted to bring tomatoes to the market.

An Authorized One, ranking 47th of the 178, saw you trudging along with your cart.  He blocked your way, saying, "No, unclean one.  You are by my authority banned from taking your tomatoes to the market.  You can of course, appeal my decision to the Highest of the High Courts."

Hearing this, your face greatly saddened. "But Sir — 47th, my tomatoes will be no good after the two years it takes to go to the Highest.  They will be no good after two weeks!"

The 47th replied, "Indeed, small cretin, lowest of the low.  You see now the majesty in our Unrule of Law. Now go back to your small, cold and dark hovel, and ponder this matter."

You turned, hunched down, and wearily started back.  But before going a hundred paces, you found blocking your way another man in black. "Halt,
miserable pond scum.  I am the 68th of the 178.  You have been found by me in violation of the Law Protecting Small Creatures that Might be Squashed. You may not go further in this direction, however you may appeal my decision to the Highest, which will take years."

"But I can't go back to my house? I will be stranded here in the road with my rotten tomatoes!  I cannot go forward, and I cannot go back!"  Desperately you looked to the left, only to see the 13th, 99th, and 11th of the 178 frowning.  You looked to the right, and saw a multitude of the mid 30s of the 178.  

Then you sat down in the mud, right in the middle of the road.  A tall one in black robes came up on horseback, and peering down, shouted, "Get up! You are blocking the road. By the authority vested in me as the 178th of the 178, I decree you must get off this road immediately."

"But how may I?  I can't go forward, or back, or to either side."

"Then you must go up.  And be quick about it.  Just put your head through that loop of rope, and you'll be pulled up out of the way."

You looked up at the noose hanging from the tree branch, and wondered how this could have came to be.

... and now that he is in, voila! Travel ban reinstated, but partially. I really don't get this; it's like they actually want chaos to ensue. Suspending review but letting it be actionable?

Notice we haven't had a terror attack on US soil recently (well, Islamic terror at least). This tells me two things. One, since this occurred while we didn't have the ban in place, I have to wonder how effective it will be. And two, now that this topic (it's perceived globally as a 'Muslim Ban) is at the forefront of global consciousness, will that illusion of safety falter?

And on the topic of shit that finally made it through the pipeline, that Christian cake thing might see the light of day.

And we all know it's a waste, because the cake is quite obviously a lie ;)

It's okay if you don't get it.

Hehehe this is democracy at work here, Trump has received a huge boost in the travel ban and am loving it, now these liberal judges won't be able to interfere in what in my opinion is great for the country as a whole.

And the Supreme Court has no brought it back under an unanimous decision of the justices, they also came out and said that the federal courts under them had been overreaching their boundaries and shouldn't have done this. So I would be considering this a big win for the GOP and Trump in general.

Probably going to be something that's gonna set a precedence with the federal courts and executive actions of this order as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-case.html - Here's the NY Times article.

Lord I hope not. When we get the next Democratic POTUS in office, I hope judicial oversight has not degraded to the point that he would be able to ram silly shit down the pipe without any challenge, like say, a firearm ban, or revocation of current gun laws, in the name of national security. Just like when Dems used the nuclear option, and the Rebups came right behind them and did it again for Trump's confirmations. What goes around comes around, and I want to see the separation of power as deliniated as it can possibly be. We are breaking the system fighting each other, the parties I mean.

Two more things, I thought this was fucking hilarious ;)


It's gonna run its course before they take it up again :) if he writes a new one, we will restart this process anew.

Also,

I'm sure the judges that blocked the ban aren't going to enforce it in this circumstance. 'Bonafide'.

Maybe travel ban concerns with their security it promotes racism on the other hand. It is justifiable for president trump to implement this rule but it is not for the affected people in this situation.

I see that gradually, the hype around the Trump subside. Probably the President's opponents realized that to organize impeachment proceedings will be very difficult to hold. Now all their efforts are aimed at discrediting Trump without consequences for him, and it makes no sense. Americans will still have to pay for their choice all 4 years.

Five months in and Trump still hasn't figured out "what's going on" ? In fact he has caused a crisis in the Middle East that could cause a regional war (another one) by playing buddies with Saudi Arabia, the main people responsible for radical Islam's existence !

After being bitch slapped like that, if liberal district court judges try something similar again they could easily be impeached.

He's caused a crisis? Bull.

Hillary Clinton caused a crisis. Obama caused several crises.

Trump got the ME leaders together quite nicely recently.

Surprising to see the extreme-left judges such as Darth Vader Ginsburg not expressing dissent with the ruling. Leftist judges have always interpreted the constitution to suit their own views, and have repeatedly over-reached their boundaries.

Apparently they reached a hard limit to the boundaries this time around.

District court judges telling POTUS what he can and cannot do?

There's quite obviously a serious problem there.

Was Iran there ? No, of course. He caused the crisis with Qatar with that "get together" where he sided with the worst of radical islamists, against more moderate (but not good, don't get me wrong) Iran. Now a war with Iran is very possible because of Trump.

Trump has no idea what he can or cannot do, should and shouldn't do, etc. In fact he has no idea about what he's doing at any time. He's like a small child or a pet.

So to wrap it all, US is behind all these crises.  I am near to believe that the US is behind every terrorist.  That they funded them to gain control on the Middle East countries because these countries are rich in oil.  If they have control with it then maybe they would be really the super country in the world.  They stir up these countries because they cannot handle it.  Besides, according to what I have read, US have many debts.

Besides, look at what the US Fracking industry has done. Driven the price of oil down below $50 a barrel. Created energy independence for the USA.

That these oil tycoons themselves regulate prices in the market in hand practically, and no one else will be able to influence oil. But nevertheless, I noticed that Despite the fact that oil is cheaper, gasoline and other fuels are still rising in price. I do not know why such a trend persists and to whom it is profitable.

Doesn't the result of small businessmen in the USA, fracking, and driving world oil prices down below $50, breaking the back of OPEC oil price rigging, mean something?

Doesn't it mean the US is not behind secret deals and politics in the Middle East?

The oil industry is gradually becoming irrelevant in the modern world, due to the number of electric cars in the system, the other oil producing countries should just come and reduce production cost, that will cause a small shortage in the international world and drive up the price of oil once again.

The electric cars are having close to zero impact. Due to their high cost, the electric cars are unaffordable to the vast majority of the vehicle owners. Now coming back to the topic, what has caused the irrelevance of the oil industry (and OPEC in particular) is the expanding role of the American shale oil producers.

:D

Lawyers for the Trump administration went back to the Supreme Court again late Friday in the ongoing battle over President Donald Trump's travel ban -- this time asking the justices to resolve the uncertainty created by last month's ruling on which foreign nationals are exempt from the ban.


The justices may ask for the state of Hawaii to respond to the Justice Department's motion before issuing a decision on the latest dispute.


In retrospect, I dont think they handed him a win on this. what they did hand him was a political time bomb, the opportunity to drop the ball a third time regarding the travel ban. Mr. Thomas told us this, but we failed to listen I see. at this point, im almost hoping you guys do deliver on healthcare, its been a rough week/month/quarter/whole administration for the guys in the WH. Insert bigly joke.

so, thoughts? you cant really argue the logic on this, although this is clearly obstructionist in nature. they just have a point; how do you fuck over all the grandmas and grandpas in all this? jokes aside, its obviously a close relationship in American society, and we have intergenerational cohabitation in some homes, I lived with my gma for a little while when I was a kid.

The previous American government encouraged fracking, in order to bring down the crude oil prices, and thereby bankrupting Russia. They thought that Russia will not last for more than one or two years. But even after more than three years, Russia is going strong.  

Even though they encouraged fracking, its been of great benefit for the entire world,  crude related products are very low and consumers are happy about that, Though not a fan of the previous US government i laud that initiative.

Ah, the tossing granny off the cliff argument?

It seems to me that this is already too much. If there are any political circumstances to hate her sympathize with one of the candidates or some other politician, then this is the right of every person. It seems to me that American society is very free to express itself. The fact is that they have long been accustomed to this and I think that this should be reconciled.

Bring 1000 of those economic migrantsband settle them next to clooney home, he moves, being new migrants... bring then in beverly hills and the hamptons.

Great idea. Those who support importing these terrorists must pay for their upkeep. Why should the hardworking American citizens pay for the fantasies of a few libertards living inside their posh gated societies?