Immigration Ban
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
Danny Bateman
Donor
WTF
Last edited by a moderator:
commando
Active member
have to see if he is going to call for emergency service or just shoot the dirty mongrel illegal
BigRedBuster
Active member
It's now well over 120 days since in office. They said they needed 120 days to assess the vetting process.
Can anyone tell me how that's going?
Can anyone tell me how that's going?
BigRedBuster
Active member
This is why an all out Muslim Ban (as Trump wants even though he isn't saying it publicly right now) is flat out wrong.
Danny Bateman
Donor
Read the story.
Quite simply, if this doesn't disturb you to your core, you should be ashamed to call yourself an American. Dumb, senseless murders happen all the time. But the way this one was perpetrated that is vile and disgusting.
I'll anxiously await a statement from our dear leader. I'd like to see how much he cares about these women.
Quite simply, if this doesn't disturb you to your core, you should be ashamed to call yourself an American. Dumb, senseless murders happen all the time. But the way this one was perpetrated that is vile and disgusting.
I'll anxiously await a statement from our dear leader. I'd like to see how much he cares about these women.
BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
funhusker
Active member
Going to the Supreme Court.
God, I hope they strike it down too. What a kick in the nuts that would be!
(not holding my breath though)
To any legal minds, what's the point? Are they just looking for a precedent to be set, or just wasting time because of pride? The time frames outlined in the original ban have mostly come and gone, the vetting changes should have already taken place. Right?
God, I hope they strike it down too. What a kick in the nuts that would be!
(not holding my breath though)
To any legal minds, what's the point? Are they just looking for a precedent to be set, or just wasting time because of pride? The time frames outlined in the original ban have mostly come and gone, the vetting changes should have already taken place. Right?
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
A responsible Supreme Court should ask questions like:
Why do you need this?
Why has the original time frame for this ban lapsed and you're still asking for it?
What steps have you taken in the intervening months since you first proposed this to fix the problem you're alleging we have?
If you haven't been working on those problems, why not?
If we implement this ban, what safeguards are in place to ensure that it is not abused?
Why do you need this?
Why has the original time frame for this ban lapsed and you're still asking for it?
What steps have you taken in the intervening months since you first proposed this to fix the problem you're alleging we have?
If you haven't been working on those problems, why not?
If we implement this ban, what safeguards are in place to ensure that it is not abused?
teachercd
Active member
BigRedBuster
Active member
zoogs
New member
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10
The Supreme Court grants cert for compelling reasons and I don't think "hot topic" is one of them. Any administration could create arbitrarily hot topics. For example, they can do something as outrageous as try to implement a Muslim ban.
I don't know the kind of legal ground the administration is on, of course, but hasn't this been struck down decisively at every turn so far?
EDIT -- ah, probably better coverage here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/friday-round-up-372/#more-256329
The Supreme Court grants cert for compelling reasons and I don't think "hot topic" is one of them. Any administration could create arbitrarily hot topics. For example, they can do something as outrageous as try to implement a Muslim ban.
I don't know the kind of legal ground the administration is on, of course, but hasn't this been struck down decisively at every turn so far?
EDIT -- ah, probably better coverage here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/friday-round-up-372/#more-256329
Last edited by a moderator: