[link] Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Travel Ban- Three Strikes Your Out?

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 45)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:08:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:08:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, MY out.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:10:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah I don't make news threads I should have put the first paragraph in.

A federal judge on Tuesday largely blocked the Trump administration from implementing the latest version of the president’s controversial travel ban, setting up yet another legal showdown on the extent of the executive branch’s powers when it comes to setting immigration policy.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:10:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
Damn IT I'm not fixing the grammatical error. I will live with my shame.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:25:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
Not sure I buy the “plainly discriminates based on nationality” argument. Our immigration policy restricts entry to the US based on the potential immigrants country of origin. How is the travel ban any more discriminatory than current policy?
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 4:52:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
I call Sealion.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:09:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think that there probably religious animus was a part of all the travel bans.

I'm wondering how much of Trumps overall immigration strategy is intended to counteract Hart-Cellar in '65 and the in influx of non-whites that increased since then.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:31:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
Are you kidding me? You think he's heard of that when he doesn't even know that Puerto Ricans are American?!??!
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:36:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, I think people like Stephen Miller know about it though. I honestly don't think trump has an ideological dog in this race.

I think he essentially cares about looking like he is winning at all costs and he'll listen to what ever he likes will help in "win."
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:38:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
Trump has late-stage dementia.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:48:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:09:49 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
I think that there probably religious animus was a part of all the travel bans. I'm wondering how much of Trumps overall immigration strategy is intended to counteract Hart-Cellar in '65 and the in influx of non-whites that increased since then.


The fact that most Muslim-majority countries are not included in the ban, and non-Muslim majority countries are seems to eliminate religion as the basis for the ban. Not to mention that there is not a 'religious exception' to allow admission for non Muslims from the countries affected by the ban.


1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 6:30:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
That is why for this ban they will likely have an easier time defending it in court.
1 month ago - Tuesday 10/17/17 - 11:39:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
I was really hoping this would get blocked a few weeks ago at the same time they failed on Obamacare, so that way we could say he failed two different things for the 3rd time each in the same week. Oh well.
1 month ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 12:07:18 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Tuesday 10/17/17 - 5:38:10 PM womersley wrote:
Trump has late-stage dementia.


Early. Late stage would be much better.
1 month ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 2:18:19 AM EST (GMT-5)
On a related note I've been meaning to ask about last week's SC decision to dismiss one of the earlier cases, send it back to the lower courts and "wipe the lower courts oppinion from the book".

I don't really understand what this means or implies. The lower Courts initially blocked his ban, so why would they send it back there but also erase their ruling? Are they essentially forcing a retrial? Is there any reason to expect a different outcome the second time around? Or am I completely misunderstanding this because I kind of feel like I am.
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 7:28:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
I believe it was because the travel ban expired before the appeal got to be heard by the SC.
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 7:48:14 AM EST (GMT-5)
It means that they wanted the precedent created by the previous case in the lower courts to not count. It basically sends a message to the lower court that the supreme court doesn't want to tell them how to handle the cases, but they also don't want them handled like that.
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 12:46:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 7:28:43 AM CowDung wrote:
I believe it was because the travel ban expired before the appeal got to be heard by the SC.

I understand that it had/will expire but I think both sides can agree that whether or not it's expired the legality of the ban - and the legality of blocking the ban - should be ruled on for future reference and future Presidents.

On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 7:48:14 AM Kepi wrote:
but they also don't want them handled like that.

So, is it an implicit message that the ban was technically legal?
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 12:53:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't think that they can rule on a matter that is moot before the courts...
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:05:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
Being expired has nothing to do with whether it was legal to issue in the first place. Being expired has nothing to do with weather it was right to block it in the first place.
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:07:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:05:58 PM Ahmed wrote:
Being expired has nothing to do with whether it was legal to issue in the first place. Being expired has nothing to do with weather it was right to block it in the first place.


..but the courts can only rule on legal matters. Once the ban expired, it was no longer a legal issue.
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:07:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well idk is the conservative media portraying the judges blocking these EOs as illegal or just "wrong"?
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:08:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:05:58 PM Ahmed wrote:
Being expired has nothing to do with whether it was legal to issue in the first place. Being expired has nothing to do with weather it was right to block it in the first place.

Courtbebe straightened this out last time there was a travel ban thread. The concept is called "ripeness".
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:10:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:05:58 PM Ahmed wrote:
Being expired has nothing to do with whether it was legal to issue in the first place. Being expired has nothing to do with weather it was right to block it in the first place.
On Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:08:16 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Courtbebe straightened this out last time there was a travel ban thread. The concept is called [link].

So unless the other two bands have longer expiration dates and make it to the Supreme Court with time left, all of this is not really going to matter?
30 days ago - Wednesday 10/18/17 - 1:15:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well it certainly matters to the people who are affected by it right now. Unless/until this is overturned on appeal, they won't be blanket-banned from entering the country.

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 45)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit