[–] killkillkill ago
Do we have a link to the actual ban here? I know he did it twice, was it the same one both times? Which countries are on the list and what does it mean as far as them entering?
[–] derram 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Supreme Court upholds President Donald Trump's immigration travel ban
'Digital privacy: Supreme Court cracks down on government snooping through cellphone location recordsInternet shopping: Supreme Court allows states to collect sales taxes on more online transactionsPartisan gerrymandering: Supreme Court punts on two cases regarding partisan election districts', "WASHINGTON -- A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Trump's immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries Tuesday as a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority."
'Trump issued a simple, seven-word tweet shortly after the ruling was announced: "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!"'
'Now that the court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump’s unilateral and unwise travel ban."', "Indeed, most of the judges who issued rulings on Trump's travel ban said his statements as a candidate, president-elect and president were relevant."
Shabos goy and their (((masters))) protest Sessions in LA over President Trumps immigration policy.
“The rabbis, pastors and other faith leaders were among a group of about 150 demonstrators gathered outside the federal courthouse on Spring Street who were targeting Sessions because of his role in defending President Trump’s “zero tolerance” border policy”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sessions-downtown-20180626-story.html
[–] faggotfaggotfaggot 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Trump is continuing a pre-existing law that was originally implemented by obamer. I don't see libtards bitchin when Obama separated families or banned Muslims... Edit spelling
[–] logos_ethos 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
some judges and legal analysts argued that campaign promises should be off-limits, or at least dwarfed by government actions that are not overtly discriminatory.
Correct. If the court is allowed to use rhetoric to interfere with dialectic, then we will have a very dysfunctional government.
[–] 2cents4free ago
Sotamoyer makes a valid point yet it seems they recalibrated appropriately.
[–] CrudOMatic 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
When Obama did it, it was OK. When Trump renewed it, and added a few countries, all the sudden it was the diktat of der fuhrer.
[–] CrudOMatic ago
I predict that when Democrats get power again, they're going to try to ban travel/immigration/refugees from Europe & Russia just to spite us... of course conveniently missing the whole TERRORISM point entirely.