Surely this won't be accepted? I mean this has to mean that the SCOTUS is racist, right? Someone call Maxine to the podium, she needs to get the rabble out there harassing the Justices now. Separately, did you guys read about this: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/tehrans-grand-bazaar-shuts-down-as-protests-mount.php This may be the next best opportunity for American Imperialism starting to heat back up. Obama passed on it but I question whether or not Trump will. Inflation, protests.....violence is not far behind.
We're starting to see the real danger of Mitch McConnell. This decision, along with the decision in Abbot vs Perez, will simply not be seen as legitimate by a good portion of observers because Gorsuch was the deciding vote. As time passes, more decisions will fall into that category of "important and decided 5-4" and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will degrade with each one. If Garland had been the fifth vote to uphold the travel ban, the left wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be as damaging as this is going to be.
It really strains the credibility of anyone, particularly the ACLU, in calling it a "Muslim ban" since it affects 5 of approximately 50 majority Muslim nations. Plus the limited bans on the universally muslim nations of Venezuela and North Korea. None of the top 5 Muslim nations by population are included. Each of the ones included have well documented state-financed terrorism or at least clearly defined ties. When you actually read the ruling, its not really about that anyway. Its about whether or not the President has the constitutional authority to ban foreign citizens from entry into the US. The purpose of the court is to interpret how laws measure against the Constitution, not make decisions on morality.
All Presidential authority is subservient to the Constitution however, so the question of whether the ban violates the first amendment is critical to deciding the legality of the order. As for the credibility of calling it a Muslim ban, of course that's what it was. Keep in mind that this is the third order, the previous two revised specifically to get them past judicial review. Venezuela and North Korea weren't in the original order, and were clearly added to further the exact argument you just made: it can't be a Muslim ban because we threw a few Kims and Rodriguezes (Rodrigui?) on the heap. Trump's statements during the campaign and even in defense of the order made it extremely clear the intent of the order was to restrict Muslim entry into the United States.
I know that Sotomayor's dissenting opinion. But how do you reconcile that with what was enacted? There isnt really ground to stand on there. The Islamic countries with the highest travel to the US werent included and its not even as long as the OFAC list. On the first point, what first amendment right was in question?
Start from the idea of "ban all Muslim entry into the United States" and then work backward until you reach a point where you think it will survive judicial review. You don't have to go for the whole hog at once, and I don't understand why people think you have to. Few things, if any, have ever been done all at once like that.
Well I guess we'll find out if other countries start getting added to the list a few months from now, particularly Indonesia. Time will tell.
I mean if Obama had campaigned by saying "Barack Obama is calling for a total and complete shutdown of gun sales in the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" then you'd probably have a point. Also if guns were people.
The saddest part of all this remains that people heard Trump explicitly say he wanted to ban all Muslims and voted for him anyway.
Well 2008 Obama didnt like gay marriage, but 2012 Obama did because he "evolved." Perhaps Donny "evolved" too? Probably not and Im being glib. But I think another main indicator is that the ban was on nations with high populations of Shia Muslims. I'll reserve different judgment until the numbers start going up or that factor changes.
I think it's kind of sad how he basically says, "I want to do X", and is told, "sorry, you can't do that, it's illegal", and then he basically tries to find a way to do it anyway. Take a look at the tariffs... he shouldn't normally have the authority to do that, so he calls up the "national security" clause so that he can do it. It's bullshit, and nobody is really calling him on it.
This leads into a topic that's come up a couple times recently, most directly in Abbot vs Perez: the idea of giving the government a presumption of good faith. In several of these decisions the conservative justices have, explicitly or implicitly, granted the government a presumption of good faith. Essentially saying that if the government says it is doing something for a given reason, that is in fact the reason they are doing it, or if they are taking an action in accordance with a given law or decision, that they are not intentionally doing so in a way intended to undermine the proper functioning of that law or decision. In the conservative justices' defense, that is how things are intended to work. However, it is also intended that such officials who are not acting in good faith are to be removed from office either through elections, impeachment, or firing, and that is clearly not happening. The liberal justices are correct in determining that the President and other Republican leaders are acting in bad faith and are deliberately seeking to undermine the laws they have sworn to uphold.
https://www.theonion.com/tips-for-staying-civil-while-debating-child-prisons-1827147411 The Onion for the win, again
I guess my issue with this whole administration and all of congress basically is that I don't think a single person in it, is acting in good faith. Maybe I'm too cynical.
No you’re not. They are acting in the faith of the donors, so exactly. Whole system is a sewer really. King of the turds is Donny “Carpetbagger” Trump.
Well, I don’t know if this is going to excite you any, but A 28 year old nobody is about to primary a 10 term incumbent and player in democratic house leadership. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I think that this is the big change that Trump brings. Your politics has gotten so bad, on both sides, that people have more or less had enough of the old-school, career, bought-and-paid for politician. I think we'll see more of this moving forward.