SCOTUS!!!

[monosylab1k]

I feel better about Such now. I feared he had mole tendencies, but, he looks like a solid citizen there.

Haven't seen Cubby this fired up since Kobe got two-pieced.

[ducks]

https://twitter.com/RepJeffDuncan/st...id%2F798283%2F

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/RepJeffDuncan/st...id%2F798283%2F

[Thread]

Haven't seen Cubby this fired up since Kobe got two-pieced.

C'mon, Mono, open up the phone lines. The time is ripe!!!

[Thread]

Trump President. Not Clinton.

[Clipper Nation]

POTUS

[boutons_deux]

Trash lies, or maybe he's just too ing stupid to understand

Trump’s Bragging Tweet On Muslim Ban Just Backfired

Trump tweeted:

Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!
1:25 PM - 26 Jun 2017

Ignoring Trump’s odd decision or perhaps mistake in writing an O instead of a zero, we find yet another blatant attempt on the part of Trump to spread misinformation.

He is clearly trying to make it appear as if the Supreme Court has unanimously endorsed his Muslim ban,

when really all they’ve done is defer their final decision until after they can hear the official case.

Furthermore,

the ban in its current form is a far cry from the original ban suggested by Trump and his toadies.

For now, the ban will prevent travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen only if they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or en y in the United States.”

Out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, only three – Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and Neil Gorsuch – said they would have supported the full ban. Nowhere near unanimous.

If the Supreme Court rules in October to overturn the Muslim Ban, Trump will sorely regret his premature celebratory tweet.

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/06/26/trumps-bragging-tweet-muslim-ban-just-backfired/

[Thread]

POTUS

[Adam Lambert]

skeet skeet skeet skeet

[Reck]

So why are the resident Trumpies celebrating again?

They can only partially put the travel ban in place while they review the case. You cant call a win when you're on the second quarter. LOL

[pgardn]

This Supreme Court just set a record for consensus.

I expect Cosmo to present his conspiracy at a later date.

[spurraider21]

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 matter

SCOTUS will hear arguments in october

eyup

[Blake]

Good call

[Chris]

Big win for America

Trump

[Chris]

eyup

Don't you think it's troubling that four Supreme Court Justices voted against the cons ution.

[spurraider21]

Don't you think it's troubling that four Supreme Court Justices voted against the cons ution.

i dont really see it that way. people read grey areas differently all the time. are you concerned every time SCOTUS doesnt go 9-0 on an issue? just happens that in this case, my assessment matched the slim majority.

[SnakeBoy]

i dont really see it that way. people read grey areas differently all the time. are you concerned every time SCOTUS doesnt go 9-0 on an issue? just happens that in this case, my assessment matched the slim majority.

Where is the grey area? They wrote in their dissent that they were judging Trump's campaign rhetoric and not the actual policy in front of them. That should be a precedent that you would ind a bit concerning.

[Chris]

[monosylab1k]

you guys are ing re ed.

[Chris]

you guys are ing re ed.

Your boy Keith just blew a gasket.

[Chris]

[spurraider21]

Where is the grey area? They wrote in their dissent that they were judging Trump's campaign rhetoric and not the actual policy in front of them. That should be a precedent that you would ind a bit concerning.

i think i had a discussion with elnono about that some time ago. i mean ultimately i agree, this revised version of the policy was religion neutral. iirc the original version had an exception for religious minorities in those countries being persecuted ie christians

to say that justices on the minority "voted against the cons ution" is just really strange. i would never really characterize it that way

[DMC]

Typically the issue up for debate isn't as cut and dry as it seems to be. It seems that an aspect of the argument is being voted on, and other aspects are not covered.

[Pavlov]

Glad I didn't start an open borders straw man drinking game.

[monosylab1k]

Your boy Keith just blew a gasket.

And during that meltdown, he in no way implied that Trump paid off a Supreme Court justice.