muhahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Why do they still need the travel ban? It was supposed to be a temporary ban until they formed a better solution? It's been well past the 90 days they said they needed.
To keep out the riff & the raff, iow...anybody who ain't wasp.
Blame the 9th Circuit for trying so hard to obstruct it.
SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OTHER JUDGES YOU ED UP
If that back stabbing Bush hadn't put Roberts in there we'd be sittin' pretty right this second.
pointless "win" that accomplishes nothing other than jerking off you less racists and xenophoves, and excludes Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
That doesn't matter. They've had more than 90 days to formulate a plan.
So they don't actually care about the safety of Americans, they just want to win a measuring contest
pure political theatre, bread and circuses for Trash's supporters
SCOTUS!!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...-politics.html
Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
Associated Press • 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a cons utional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.
The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.
The high court decided in 2008 that the Cons ution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.
But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.
More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."
The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns.
The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes.
The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration's appeal.
Daniel Binderup of Manheim, Pennsylvania, was 41 when he pleaded guilty to "corruption of minors" after acknowledging that he had been involved in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee of his bakery business. The crime is a misdemeanor yet carries with it a maximum prison term of five years, although Binderup was given probation instead of time behind bars.
Julio Suarez was convicted in Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license, a misdemeanor with a possible prison term of up to three years. Suarez received a six-month sentence, which was suspended, and a year of probation.
Islamophobes unite
Is Saudi Arabia included in the ban?
SCOTUS!!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...-politics.html
Supreme Court sides with same-sex couples in Arkansas suit
Associated Press 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled for same-sex couples who complained an Arkansas birth certificate law discriminated against them.
The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion reversing an Arkansas high court ruling that upheld the law.
Under the law, married lesbian couples had to get a court order to have both spouses listed as parents on their children's birth certificates.
Arkansas routinely lists a woman's husband as a child's father, even if he is not the biological parent of the child. The same-sex couples want the same presumption applied to the married partner of a woman who gives birth to a child.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the ruling.
"Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling"
of course, as intended by the VRWC, Gorsuck is proving to be a reliably extremist head as eternal head Thomas.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-26-2017 at 01:20 PM.
I said a while back that I never understood why the second travel ban was struck down. It's awful policy, to be sure, but not uncons utional.
By the way, they still haven't called the ban legal. They're still going to hear arguments. They just stayed the injunction, so the ban will be active pending arguments and final decision.
also, looks like those with family here will still be able to travel from those countries in the meantine
so tl;dr is that the injunction was, in part, lifted, and in part, kept in place, depending on whether or not the foreign national in question has a relationship with a person/en y in the US... and there's been no determination yet regarding the cons utionality of the ban, beyond the word of thomas/alito/gorsuch. roberts, and perhaps more importantly, kennedy still silent on the matterWe grant theGovernment’s applications to stay the injunctions, to theextent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) withrespect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or en y in the United States.
SCOTUS will hear arguments in october
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-26-2017 at 01:44 PM.
before and after SCOTUS ruling
Good. No reason to hear the cases now. Better to wait until Kennedy hangs it up and the court favors gun owners.
Glory be, glory be!!!!!!!!!
9-0 the other judges were playing politics and not doing what judges were suppose to do!
Gorsuch was one, I think. He wanted to reinstate the original so that's why
I feel better about Such now. I feared he had mole tendencies, but, he looks like a solid citizen there.
He came off as a strong cons utional judge for me, he'd OK any federal level pro 2A bill probably
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
