SCOTUS!!!

[Thread]

muhahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Thread]

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Supreme-Court-Travel/2017/06/26/id/798207)

[monosylab1k]

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.

[Thread]

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.

[Clipper Nation]

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.
Blame the 9th Circuit for trying so hard to obstruct it.

[ducks]

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.

SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OTHER JUDGES YOU FUCKED UP

[Thread]

If that back stabbing Bush hadn't put Roberts in there we'd be sittin' pretty right this second.

[boutons_deux]

pointless "win" that accomplishes nothing other than jerking off you dickless racists and xenophoves, and excludes Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

[monosylab1k]

Blame the 9th Circuit for trying so hard to obstruct it.

That doesn't matter. They've had more than 90 days to formulate a plan.

[monosylab1k]

SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OTHER JUDGES YOU FUCKED UP

So they don't actually care about the safety of Americans, they just want to win a dick measuring contest :tu

[boutons_deux]

That doesn't matter. They've had more than 90 days to formulate a plan.

pure political theatre, bread and circuses for Trash's supporters

[monosylab1k]

SCOTUS!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-gun-rights-appeal-133833522--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 constitutional 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 Constitution 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.

[Chris]

muhahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Blake]

Islamophobes unite

[TimDunkem]

Is Saudi Arabia included in the ban?

[monosylab1k]

SCOTUS!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-same-sex-couples-arkansas-suit-134418000--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.

[boutons_deux]

"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 dickhead as eternal dickhead Thomas.

[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 unconstitutional.

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


We 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 entity in the United States.

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/entity in the US... and there's been no determination yet regarding the constitutionality 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

[boutons_deux]

before and after SCOTUS ruling

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/[email protected]

[TSA]

SCOTUS!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-gun-rights-appeal-133833522--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 constitutional 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 Constitution 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.

Good. No reason to hear the cases now. Better to wait until Kennedy hangs it up and the court favors gun owners.

[Thread]

879405223399350272

Glory be, glory be!!!!!!!!!

[ducks]

9-0 the other judges were playing politics and not doing what judges were suppose to do!

[Mitch]

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

[Thread]

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.

[Mitch]

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 constitutional judge for me, he'd OK any federal level pro 2A bill probably

[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/status/879368690822721537/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2FNewsfront%2 Flawmakers-urge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-recuse%2F2017%2F06%2F26%2Fid%2F798283%2F

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/RepJeffDuncan/status/879368690822721537/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2FNewsfront%2 Flawmakers-urge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-recuse%2F2017%2F06%2F26%2Fid%2F798283%2F
:lol

[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]

879405676925267969

Trump President. Not Clinton.

[Clipper Nation]

POTUS

[boutons_deux]

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

Trump’s Bragging Tweet On Muslim Ban Just Backfired

Trump tweeted:


Follow (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpgDonald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)✔@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/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 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/879405223399350272)


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 entity in the United States.”

Out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, only three – Clarence Thomas :lol, Samuel Alito :lol, and Neil Gorsuch :lol – 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/ (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 unconstitutional.

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/entity in the US... and there's been no determination yet regarding the constitutionality 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 :tu

Trump

[Chris]

eyup

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

[spurraider21]

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

1011698566685917185

[monosylab1k]

1011698566685917185

:lmao you guys are fucking retarded.

[Chris]

:lmao you guys are fucking retarded.

Your boy Keith just blew a gasket. :lol

[Chris]

1011700418240393216

[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 constitution" 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]

1011700418240393216Glad I didn't start an open borders straw man drinking game.

[monosylab1k]

Your boy Keith just blew a gasket. :lol

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

[DMC]

Cue riots in Portland and Cali.

[DMC]

muhahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Arn

[Chris]

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


“It just proves that if you steal and rip-off a Supreme Court Justice, then you can try and jam any kind of nasty, racist, ugly policy you can down the throats of the American people,”

?

[SnakeBoy]

:lmao you guys are fucking retarded.

:lmao It's your leader

[monosylab1k]

?

Point me to the word “pay” pls, k thx bye

[monosylab1k]

The term “rip off” literally means to not pay :lmao dumb fucking cunts.

[Chris]

1011808324109701120