You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Quote: Katyal said. "The travel ban is atrocious policy and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals."
What a curious statement.... care to backup how banning travel from these countries leads to increased violence?
Easy: Ctrl-Left Regressives don't get their way (letting in hordes of fighting-age, un-vetted, third-world savages), so they start rioting and threatening anyone to the right of Chairman Mao with violence for daring to have an opinion that doesn't align with the hive mind.
What's shocking is that there were four votes against it. It was a very reasonable restriction that should not have received the kind of opposition that it did.
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
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.
Sort: Top
[–] 2cents4free 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Quote: Katyal said. "The travel ban is atrocious policy and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals." What a curious statement.... care to backup how banning travel from these countries leads to increased violence?
[–] uvulectomy 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Easy: Ctrl-Left Regressives don't get their way (letting in hordes of fighting-age, un-vetted, third-world savages), so they start rioting and threatening anyone to the right of Chairman Mao with violence for daring to have an opinion that doesn't align with the hive mind.
[–] liftwizard 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
How about an ACTUAL muslim ban?
[–] Derjuden 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
What kind of Muslim ban includes North Korea, yet excludes Saudi Arabia?
[–] Arrvee 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
What's shocking is that there were four votes against it. It was a very reasonable restriction that should not have received the kind of opposition that it did.
[–] 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.
[–] prairie 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Only what, a year delayed? I'm sad.
[–] Eualos 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Duh
[–] 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
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.