The most perfect example of ideological pollution of the lower federal courts by Obama and his corrupted administration has been exposed , Yesterday the US Supreme Courts CLEARED Trumps Travel Ban of seven middle east countries , Interesting that the media is ignoring but ONE MORE of their obstructionist political moves against the Trump Administration ?
Liberals lose again !
Half the story, Ahorseback? They gave Trump a reprieve on many points of his ban, but not all of them. The rest will have to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court when it can get it on the docket.
One more Trump victory , in spite of all your alt -leftist obstruction incited by phony media collusion ! What's this like the fifteenth one now ?
Maybe sore Hilary losers should not swallow so much false accusatory media ?
Still watching all that Rachel Maddox soap opera ?
like the 100th time the GOP has tried to repeal Obamacare. So how does the field look now? Looks like Tutor Turtle is in for a grave disappointment. I wonder how many breakables are in Trumps office subject to his upcoming tantrum as a result?
Hmm. Guess he's not a racist, bigoted Islamophobe then. Or maybe the entire SCOTUS is (it was a unanimous vote)?
Thomas went on record, though, as saying that the decision to let in those with "significant" ties to people here will give rise to an enormous court backlog as the term was not defined. Want to guess how many US citizens have suddenly been communicating and friendly with individual refugees for years?
All of them ? With all of the phony news obstructionism from the media , the left , the leftist polluted lower courts , and DOJ , Its a wonder Trump hasn't quit . Ha ! ....... Or at least start firing more Obama leftover employees . Why he doesn't do more of that , I don't know .
LOL. One wonders if the far left can actually do that. Even being poop it would smell better than what they are throwing out at the moment.
One MORE totally embarrassing setback for liberals and your media , both in decline . Advice ? Better stick with your tofu and granola . Then you won't have to not only admit total loss , but you won't have to spell it out either .
However ,sound this out ? .......................... See U in 2024 ?
I have no idea what planet you are on.
The ban can be enforced for refugees and those who do not have that personal relationship.
Note, this wasn’t a ruling on the constitutionality of the administration’s policy on the merits. Rather, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the White House’s appeal.
Shouldn’t this quickly become a moot point? Trump’s first executive order on the subject, issued in January, unraveled soon after. The second White House policy, unveiled in March, called for a 120-day ban on refugees and a 90-day ban on other visitors from the targeted countries. The point, Trump administration officials said, was to impose a temporary ban that would allow the relevant U.S. agencies to create new vetting and screening procedures.
Which of course the DJT Admin has done nothing, nada, about so I don't know what you are crowing about since the Muslim ban ended June 19, 2017 (???? - not sure on the exact date - but expired by October)
Another victory for Captain clueless
You're right - all of the improperly made decisions by the courts to date have been nothing but a partisan and political delaying tactic, not an honest effort by people, lawyers or the courts to decide legality. And it worked; by spending millions and tying up the courts in frivolous cases the original order has about run it's course.
But what Muslim ban are YOU talking about? I'm unaware of any ban on travel, immigration or refugees based on any religion, let alone Islam? Can you be more specific, perhaps pointing to a specific order that prohibits travel for anyone of the Islamic faith?
Why are you pretending not to know why the lower courts stopped the Muslim ban based on Trump's own words? That dog won't hunt. BTW courts are not partisan when they disagree with you personal politics.
I repeat, what Muslim ban? There never was such a thing, regardless of how much you would spin and twist a travel ban from specific geographical areas rampant with terrorism.
(Did you ever actually read those orders, or simply swallow the spin of the haters?)
Partisan courts - apparently they are, when they disagree with the SCOTUS, and all in the same liberal direction.
It doesn't specifically say "Muslim" ban, but it's not as if politicians have never proposed something under the guise of it being something else. Debating whether or not that's actually his intention is another can of worms.
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban
Here he is in his own words.
December 7, 2015
Just a few hours before a rally in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Donald Trump released a policy proposal online which called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” The 2015 policy proposed a blanket ban on Muslims based on what Trump called “hatred” of the West innate in Islam.
June 27, 2016
Trump said his Muslim ban would apply "in particular [to] the terrorist states." It's still unclear if this extra vetting subsumes his blanket ban or if this is an extra layer of focus within the existing ban.
Trump did however open up the ban to include all people, of all religions who come from Trump-designated terror states. When pressed by NBC's Hallie Jackson on whether his ban would apply to other religions other than Islam, for example Christians in Syria, Trump allowed that : "Christians are going to be vetted very, very seriously, if you're a Christian and you try to get in from Syria."
Trump then added that he thinks "Christians from Syria have been treated unbelievably badly by this country," further confusing the parameters of his ban.
Great! Now quote the actual order given, and show it even mentions Muslims. Or is your quote from Trump that "Christians are going to be vetted very, very seriously, if you're a Christian and you try to get in from Syria." to be taken as indicative that it wasn't Muslims, but ALL religions, faiths, races; all people in other words? That your claim he banned Muslims specifically, or that it was Muslim ban, just spin to vilify the man?
Everyone knows that muslims are evil. Except of course, for people who actually know muslims. They are probably confused by the fact that muslims seem like all other kinds of people, with families, hopes, quirks and ... you get the picture.
Time to wipe out those who do not fit the program, I suppose.
If our government believed that and had the support of the people there would be a ban on Muslims entering the country. There would be a ban on all people from predominantly Muslim countries.
Since there isn't, yours is a knee jerk reaction. More so than Trump attempting to pinpoint problem spots. I don't agree with the travel ban but it isn't as ignorant as your assumptions.
by Demas W Jasper 20 months ago
Do you know that the travel ban is because those countries lost control over their legit passports?ISIS got control of Iraqi passports when the captured Mosul. Al Quaeda got such control in parts of Yemen. ISIS controls parts of Syria where passport materials were available, etc. Until...
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
France - Belguim - the ban is spreadingPresident Nicolas Sarkozy urged French Muslims today not to feel hurt nor stigmatised by a planned ban on full face veils that will fine women who hide their faces and jail men if they force them to cover up.Mr Sarkozy told a cabinet meeting, which approved...
by Sychophantastic 20 months ago
President Trump has come through on one of his campaign promises and instituted a travel ban to prevent terrorists from entering our country.His extreme vetting policy will make us much safer from radical Islamic terrorists.As Kellyanne Conway said, we need to prevent massacres like the one that...
by ptosis 20 months ago
The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted."Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general were exploring the possibility of legal action. “There may be grounds for a...
by Mike Russo 20 months ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
by JOC 7 months ago
Wondering how his supporters feel today with Trump's crazy behavior....First the repost of right-wing video from a group convicted of hate crimes in the UK. Video that shows a non-muslim attacking another non-muslim in the Netherlands. Then the roof incident is from Cairo and was...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|