UPDATE: Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country, a priority of the president’s since his first week in office.

The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the opinion.

Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued just in January 2017. But the administration had been hopeful about the Supreme Court, because it had previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it.

The high-profile case called for the justices to balance their usual deference to the president on matters of national security with a never-before-seen barrage of campaign statements, tweets, retweets and comments from the president tying Muslims to terrorism. It was the first time the high court had considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start. It raised questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban/2018/06/26/b79cb09a-7943-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html

---

Original article -

by Washington Post Staff June 26 at 10:20 AM

The decision came in connection with the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, issued last fall, which barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities.

The administration argued before the court earlier this year that it was within the president’s power to issue the travel restrictions and that it is not a “Muslim ban” based on religious discrimination, as critics have said.

But the challengers, led by the state of Hawaii, said that the order exceeded Trump’s authority and violated the Constitution and that its citizens and educational institutions have suffered because of the ban.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

[RKP5637]

1. I wonder when other countries will start to ban Americans from travel into their countries. n/t

[HopeAgain]

19. When it gets so bad that WE become the refugees. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Sure as hell hope so!!

[totodeinhere]

60. We'll be forced to pose as Canadians when we travel abroad. What a shame.

n/t

[olegramps]

68. The Supreme court has become a ridiculous political clearing house.

Firstly, the Turtle blocked the appointment of a judge by Obama in order to stack the court. No decision is based on the am objective determination of its Constitutionality, especially by any court dominated by Republicans. The framers of the constitution believed that by providing them with life time appointments that they would be shielded from political issues. They couldn't imagine that people could be so damn corrupt that they would jeopardize the nation for political gain. How wrong the were. The Republicans have made a mockery out of its supposed apolitical stance to appoint a president. It is has sacrificed its honor time and time again in flagrant abuses of common decency let alone any regard for impartial judicial opinions. It is at this date nothing more than a kangaroo court with the same validity of a lynch mob.

[RKP5637]

75. Well said!!! n/t

[RKP5637]

80. Yes! "... nothing more than a kangaroo court with the same validity of a lynch mob." n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. GD Gorsuch! GD McConnell!

I am beyond words....

[forgotmylogin]

20. Yeah, everything is breaking 5-4.

May Mitch McConnell roast in his shell eternally crossing a 140 degree sun-blasted stretch of autobahn in hell.

[onenote]

66. That's what happens at the end of the term

The most contentious, closely divided issues are almost always saved for the end of the term.

[leftynyc]

3. Nice going, purity people

Hope you're all happy now in your highminded "I can't vote for Hillary" mindset. Perhaps susan fucking saradon will comfort you in the country you helped create.

[47of74]

27. Yeah FUCK the purists

[OliverQ]

4. This will be the most lasting damage of Trump and McConnell

Stealing a Supreme Court seat was the most egregious behavior McConnell has ever done. And he's gloating about it like crazy. That man needs to burn in Hell.

[47of74]

6. No he's too evil for hell.

[Civic Justice]

12. Agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thucythucy]

23. What's your suggestion

on what "we" could have done that would have worked?

I'm open to anything that isn't violence. So what would you suggest?

[Meadowoak]

34. Be just as nasty back to them (verbally, not violence) don't back down, don't let them talk over you

They don't respect us, they just see us as weak because we back down too easily. They think we are losers because we always let them win.

[thucythucy]

81. I don't see how this would have stopped McDonald from blocking

President Obama's Supreme Court appointment.

But I agree, our being "civil" doesn't work with the bullies arrayed against us. It pisses me off every time I see a talking head let some conservative jackoff drone on and on with their irrelevant, nonsensical talking points.

[Liberalagogo]

49. Violence

may in fact wind up being the only way to turn this around. What will YOU do then?"

[LenaBaby61]

55. "The Dems were scared they might think we weren't polite enough."

NO they're polite to thuglicans, but savage our OWN:

We know what happened to Franken.

Schumer and Pelosi (Yes Nancy) went after Auntie Maxine yesterday. Yet, tReasonous-in-chief has called both names up the wazoo, and continues to LIE on both.

Yet they both go after one of the FEW in their own party with an actual SPINE, Auntie Maxine

Too many Dems have grown into such precious little tink tinks , which is WHY I'm no longer one, and the reason friends all across the country have told me that they've also re-registered as Independents. Yes, I'm aware that we have a mostly bought and paid for Corporate Media. Even still, I'd continue speaking no matter whose controlling the media. I'll continue to vote Dem, but stay an Independent. It hurt to become an Independent, because I come from a STRONG UAW family. My late Dad (Big Chief) was a Door hanger/Mr. Damn EVERYTHING, who proudly belonged to and worked for the GM Assembly Plant 7700 Tweedy Boulevard, Southgate, California 90280 for almost 4 decades (Deceased now, he'd be 100 if alive today). Both of my late parents were so proud to belong to & support the UAW, and be able to vote a straight (D) ticket "Back-in-the-day." I'm not sure how they'd feel about most in today's Dem party to be honest.


I stand with Auntie Maxine.

[olegramps]

69. That was back when working guys actually had a pair of balls.

They didn't hesitate to confront the strike braking goons hired by the management to suppress the workers. The women who fought for the vote were tougher than any of the panty waste that let the filthy Republicans walk over them.

[totodeinhere]

62. Well I certainly didn't allow them to do it.

I'm totally pissed about the whole thing. I just wonder if we will have a country left by the time this idiot leaves office. And Nate Silver is saying that he might very well get reelected.

[CrispyQ]

31. And it's not over!

McConnell recently bragged that he's making "generational changes" to the judiciary. And they are by confirming young, radical judges that will be on the bench for decades.

[herding cats]

53. This is correct

They're stacking the federal courts with young, ideologically radical, judges. As I said in 2016, this is not going to be over soon, or even in my lifetime.

[FakeNoose]

64. They can be impeached, and there is a precedent

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804, however subsequent trial and Senate voting found him acquitted.
I'm not an expert on the SCOTUS so maybe someone else can add to this?

Here's the Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[MarcA]

74. And they will keep on doing it and worse while Dems and their

opponents will keep pontificating that the law says this and the
law says that so you can't do this and you can't do that. They don't
care about law or ethics. All that is important to them is power. Law is
something they use to bind the opposition of others.

[quartz007]

5. Critical to defeat Rump in 2020

otherwise he gets to appoint 1-2-3 more justices to SCOTUS. Those will last lot longer than fat old Rump.

Who is best positioned to defeat Rump in 2020?

[7962]

15. I have a few in mind; Newsome & Booker are 2.

Maybe Deval Patrick. I think Jim Webb would have a chance; hes former military and not looked at by the Independents as "left wing". Like it or not, to win you MUST get the Independents vote.
I also think there are a couple who haven't popped onto the scene. But I dont like a 20-25 person primary because it will spend SOmuch money to weed out the bunch.

[Civic Justice]

67. if people know the issue they support, Politicians can focus to tell them how he/she can deliver it

on the issues ....

We can't vote based on TV Commercial Campaign Advertisement.... We need to know what we stand for, what we want, and choose the canididate who tells us HOW they can deliver, and what they have commitment to do,

We don't need to hear a bunch of attack Republican Ads... We need Adds that Speak of What Ideals we want advance, and then tell the people "HOW"...

That's exact what Trump did, he told them what he wanted, what he wanted to do, and he even told them how he would do it.

While we spent too much time focused on "Trumps belligerence'".... When we should have been incessantly selling and promoting our own agenda, its ideals and how we could achieve it and how it will benefit the people.

Sadly, we are still focused on Trump instead of Selling Our Own Plans and Ideals, that Counter Everything He comes up with that's crazy, with our own Plan, and Agenda of How we can do better and EXPLAIN to people how it can benefit them.

That's what people want to know and that's what they want to hear.

[7962]

70. All good points IMO. The people have to SEE and hear what they're going to get

I saw a meme the other day showing 2 platforms, trump & Dem. The trump had a list of some fancy "accomplishments", of course, while the Dems platform was simply labeled "hate trump"

[in2herbs]

7. USSC and our borders

To my knowledge, there is no limit to the number of USSC judges that are allowed. When democrats regain control of the WH and Senate the number of USSC judges needs to be increased, not just by one or two but by six or seven so there is a solid forward-thinking block on the court for generations to come. Those nominated should include HRC and BO. After these appointments the law should be changed to limit the appointments of future USSC judges (and federal judges) to eighteen-year staggered terms. This is the only way we will be able to move forward as a nation. I'm tired of this one step forward ten steps backward.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Well FDR tried it and that failed.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Ain't gonna hapen any time soon.

Welcome to DU by the way!

[standingtall]

21. I would not be so sure it will not happen anytime soon

If republicans get rid of the legislative filibuster. They will repeal the law from the 1860's that limits number of supreme court justices and stack the courts even more in their favor. The 1930's was a completely different era than this one. If republicans decide to stack the supreme court even further, you best believe there will not be enough republicans to vote against it to defeat it or to stall long enough that it fails.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The 30s is not different

We just got out of a major recession that would have been the equivalent of the Depression had we not still had OASDI and other safety net legislation in place.

The draconian view would be repeal of the law but should the controlling parties be suddenly reverses, then those who pushed repeal might be in for a rude awakening, which is why it hasn't been done. Plus those laws changing the size/composition of the courts during the 1800s, were mostly due to dealing with the before/after of the Civil War and caseloads, not for political purposes such as what is being proposed in modern times.

I have always said that this entire system of government has operated on an "honor system". They are slowly trying to break that "honor system" down by flaunting of a disdain for it, but there is still some major resistance. However once the "honor" breaks, there's no going back.

[standingtall]

28. Politics is far more partisan now than it was in the 30's

if it were reversed those who pushed the repeal might come to regret it, but that would not be until a long time after the fact, but right away who ever controls the majority in the government will put the opposition through absolute misery.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. Disagree

which is why if you look at FDR's term, a conscious effort was made to get super-majorities in both chambers of Congress in order to more easily get legislation enacted without a filibuster blocking it. Back then, you needed 2/3rds or 64 votes - (this was when there were only 48 states) to invoke cloture vs today's 3/5ths or 60 votes (a change that happened in 1975).

I.e., the "appearance" or "perception" of "hyper-partisanship" is more today because we have so much more access to media (and more types of that "media" beyond print or broadcast) showing the discord, live and in color, not because there is more of it now than back then.

[7962]

73. Yes, the 24hr news cycle has certainly changed perception in a number of areas.

A kid can get abducted in Seattle and we'll hear about it on the East coast for 3 days. 30 yrs ago that wasnt the case

[MosheFeingold]

39. Um, no

I was young then, but alive.

You ain't seen nothing. The real Nazis had a real, packed house rally in Madison Square Garden.

We were bordering on an actual fighting war inside our country.

[standingtall]

42. Im convinced politics is far more partisan now than it was in the 30's

republicans might have been just as partisan back then as they are now, but it did not matter much because they were the minority. Republicans have been historically more partisan than Democrats however in recent years Democrats have been closing the gap in that regard and I'm pretty sure there is polling to confirm that. Good thing Democrats are getting more partisan, because we have to survive, but as a whole the nation is more partisan.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Doubt that'll ever happen. FDR tried it with supermajorities

in both houses and was unable to convince people.

I do agree with the staggered terms. It would require a constitutional amendment, but then people would know exactly who is retirin. Perhaps knowing that 2 justices are retiring would be motivation to vote than “So and so is 85...maybe they’ll retire/die, maybe not, who knows”

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Thing is about what you propose is

that the "lifetime" appointment was done to supposedly remove some of the "activist" tendencies and allow some seniority and perhaps "common sense" to kick in and prevail. In some cases we have seen that with justices and historically you have periods like "the Warren Court" where many benefited from that experience for a good chunk of time. But for those who were virulently activist like Rehnquist, we have and can suffer for long periods too.

With staggered terms, you might end up with someone virulently activist coming in for just one purpose, with no intention to change, and then out they go, but the damage is done. This all goes back to the whole confirmation process and whether the Senate is truly doing their job to weed out these type of people. It took a major effort to keep people like Bork off the court yet those like Gorsuch breezed through thanks to a Senate rule change.

[standingtall]

22. If repukes try it in this era with simply majorities it will not fail

Failed in the 30's, because it was stalled by some Democrats that opposed it.

[in2herbs]

25. It wouldn't necessarily take a constiutional amendment

For years the ABA has been developing a plan of 18-year staggered terms. The judges would be transferred to federal court positions but retain their life time appointments.

[onenote]

65. Ridiculous plan

Would never pass constitutional scrutiny. Justices and Judges are appointed to specific positions for lifetime terms. They can't be shuffled around to different jobs every few years.

[onenote]

18. Never going to happen and Congress can't limit the length of SCOTUS Justice's term

The Constitution controls -- lifetime appointment with removal only via impeachment. Same for US Court of Appeals judges and US District Court judges.

[DeminPennswoods]

56. If Mueller finds Trump et al conspired with Russia

to help him win and Dems take over the House and Senate, then I think impeachment is on the table for ALL federal judges nominated and approved by Trump.

[onenote]

58. Nope.

First of all, to remove a judge from office would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate and that's not remotely possible before 2021. And neither the House and the Senate are going to regard getting nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, often with quite a large number of Democratic votes, as an impeachable offense.

[DeminPennswoods]

59. Disagree, if Trump conspired with Russia, that's treason

I think it's a big deal, means his entire presidency is illegitimate and therefore any appointments made to permanent positions must be removed.

[onenote]

63. Actually, it's not treason as defined in the Constitution

It may be some other crime.
And it doesn't change a damn thing about his appointments or anything else that happened while he was president.
The Constitution says that judges serve during good behavior. The documents accompanying the consideration of the Constitution make it clear that is a reference to the judge's good behavior, not that of any one else.

The Constitution made it clear that treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemenors were the basis for impeaching a president. But the Constitution does not say that anything done by a president that is impeached is rendered a nullity by that action.

You're dreaming if you think the House and Senate are going to spend ten seconds addressing Trump's appointments if he is removed from office. They are going to be focused on undoing the mess he has made in areas where legislation can make a difference.

[DeminPennswoods]

77. Any president, congressman or judge can be impeached

Impeachement is a political process, not a judicial one. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever the House decides it is, including treason by another name.

[onenote]

78. Actually, a member of Congress cannot be impeached.

The Constitution refers to "civil officers" of the United States being subject to impeachment (along with the president and Vice President) a term that has been interpreted as not including members of Congress. Rather, under the Constitution, it is left to Congress to "punish its members" and to expel a member "with the concurrence of two-thirds".

The fact that justices and judges are susceptible to being impeached is not in question. But just because it is theoretically possible that Congress could try to impeach every Trump judicial appointee, the reality is that they won't try because in the end, it will be difficult to "convict" a judge of having committed any act warranting impeachment simply because of who nominated them.

[CrispyQ]

35. The dems aren't bold enough to try anything like that.

If they gain any influence, I expect them to announce that they will "work with our colleagues across the aisle in order to heal the nation."

[MarcA]

72. Limits on Judicial Terms is Way Overdue. Don't think that increasing

the number of judges is all that good of an idea. Again, as I have
mentioned before the USSC does not have enforcement authority;
the Executive can simply ignore their decisions.

[Civic Justice]

10. This is what happens when Republican used the Nuclear Option and Installed a SC Justice

After they... broke the rules and would not vote on Obama's Nominee.

America allowed it, while american's became distracted by some missiles shot into the sand, and when the dust settled, Trump and Republican had installed a Justice to the Court..... and we as a society have come to accept it. Not much can be done now, because he's appointed for "Life"....

and Trump and Republican will fill every Federal Court and Court of Appeals with Judges from the Reagan Era Federalist Program...

[quartz007]

16. 100 rallies made the difference in election 2016 IMHO

Rump is basically an entertainer, and he kept attracting entertainment starved voters to his rallies. Some of those filled up football stadiums. Our side had no answer. We need a candidate in 2020 who can energize voters more than any one else. I don't care who it is, or how far left they are. If one can't get voters attention and get them to attend huge rallies in every state, that candidate will probably lose no matter how good in principles or ideas. Voters are not that well informed.

[Civic Justice]

29. Agree with the fact we need some who is a strong presenter, and its sad voters are not

as informed as we need them to be.... the sad part... is some fight against being informed, and other fight against being urged to become informed....

We have a mass of ENVIOUS minded people that need to change, they envy with some delusion they think somone will get more attention then they get, rather than thinking about "how to share a message and inspire people to want to share messages iwth others".

That's a fault... republican beat us because they are not worried about trying to stops one or another from getting attention,they are more concerned to "spread" their message and to get others to spread the message.

[olegramps]

71. He is a demagogue just like Hitler and Mussolini. They have been around since the Socrates.

[CrispyQ]

43. And where was the Democratic Party?

Why wasn't there a democratic spokesperson on TV every damned night, demanding McConnell give Obama's nominee a hearing? Crickets is all we heard. I don't know if it was overconfidence that HRC would win the presidency, or fear of the media, which I think the party suffers from & has for a very long time, or what the fuck their problem was, but the dems dropped the ball—again. When I was a kid, I thought the democrats were the smart party, but they've been played by the GOP since 2000. I think a few have finally woke up to the fact that the GOP has thrown the rule book in the trash, but I'm but as a party, I bet they'll continue to play nice.

[Civic Justice]

57. Its Truly sad. I've been on here since the first of the year trying to get people to talk and write

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2018, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't mean to insult anyone,, but if I can't urge and inspire them to write and talk. I have no problem trying to "incite" people to the dire need to create commentary and promote the democratic ideas, ideals, and conversational discussion about what we want, how we want it, and how we expect to make it work. .

all they do is climb up and sling out their anguish at even being asked to write commentary, or explore ideals and promote thoughts, the level of either 'over confidence", "un structured arrogance" or something...and some come off like they are such super democrats, that they no longer have to use ALL means of promoting the Democratic Message.

Ask a question, they got no answer or commentary response.... but they rush to any article of Republican and post a litany of one liner, puns, and sarcastic one liners and they think that's all that's necessary... as a result they don't make the better usage of what a forum can become in promoting "content" so we can regain the public narrative.

It's not enough to criticize the Republicans with puns and jokes, one has to have thoughts and ideas that offer a better alternative and actually invest enough thought and time to express it.. so other can pick it up and run with it.

Republican are very good at that, they don't attack one another if one or the others tries to urge them to write out their thoughts, promote their ideas and share links and spread the word.

We are too hung up on worried about who has the most posting and crazy shit like that. and playing the bigot game of, I got more posting than you, so I'm more important than you. It's the kind of BS I continually see and its stupidity driven by egomania and it does not help the Democratic Party, nor does it help promote Democratic Ideas... its more like an internal ego spin, that does more damage and harm than anything.

The habit of one liner pun's is so prevalent, that is the general standard as to what this has become. Then they get pissed off if its pointed out to them.

People have short attention spans, and anything more than two lines of text, they get more concern to criticize it rather than to read with intent to inspire, provoke, or evoke thought, to expand upon something, or generate a thought that conveys something.
They simply want to attack something, and when they can't think of how to attack, they then attack the writer, or come with some stupid comment as if they are a English professor... its the most ignorant cycle of madness ever. Then some run crying to the censor, when they come with thin skin and cant meet the challenge to generate content that pushes the Democratic Ideals.


Right Now... EVERY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PERSON SHOULD BE ON THE MEDIA NO LESS THAN 30 MINUTES EVERY DAY..... Pushing the Ideals and telling people HOW it can be achieved.

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE WOULD DO SOCIETY GREAT GOOD, TO ACTUALLY TAKE TIME AND EXPLAIN THEIR IDEAS TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT CONSIDER BECOMING A DEMOCRAT, OR TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE...WHO IS LEARNING ABOUT POLITICS AND THE VALUES OF SUPPORTING IDEALS.

Guarantee.. they come and attack this - because it give them an ego rush of some sort or something, and tries to hide the fact, they are not talking about how to spread the word of what our ideals are and how we can achieve them. all some want to do is sling sarcastic pun at republican.. I'm not against the condemnation of what republican do.. but if we don't back up the disdain with what we can do.. then slinging puns means nothing in the longer term of the big picture.

One can't live like and Old Prize Fighter trying to continue to use the same tactic's back in another time... and still training they way they use to train... when technology has advanced training to a whole new level.. Sadly, that's what too many of us are doing... and the Republican are playing the game at a whole different level.....

I have no idea how to inspire the people in this site, or incite them to create commentary and push subject and comment to help create a public narrative...

So... I create my own, and post it..... I don't care how much they attack, because the attacks tell me, they may not be as committed as they claim, if they were they'd create ideas and thoughts and actually share them...

November is coming quick, and we should already have ideas about who is the most prominent 3-4 or 5 choices that we have.

Republican started more than two years out, Attacking Hillary, with Benghazi, because they knew she'd run... they had two years of creating doubts in Democrats minds, Creating doubts in Independent's Mind, and Creating Confusion within a vast majority of Democrats and Independents... and by the time Campaigning Came ... they had planed enough seeds, and all they had to do was water the sprouts they had sowed.... and wait to reap the harvest of votes the seeds ultimately delivered to them... and people still have not figured it out as to how they were able to sway so many people..
It was done long before anything about Emails... Emails was nothing but a ruse... to extract the nectar from the vines they had grown from the seeds of doubt they planted.

They kicked ass, by playing a long game... and we have been doing not much more than playing "respond to republican drama"... unaware that we better get busy and generate commentary, promote narrative and kick our own Democratic People who hold office to get their asses up and get in front of the Camera and start telling the American people what our Ideals are, What our Plans are and HOW we expect to go about achieving them.. This is the stuff the public must become focuse upon.. When the public knows this, then the public can help rally support for it...

Right now, a mass of people have no darn idea what the Democrats have of plans and ideas, and they darn sure have no idea of how they expect to achieve it.. All they know and all they hear is "we don't like Trump"....

We need whatever the plan is, EXPLAINED to the General Public, and done so on a continual frequency of promote of the Plan.

[Freethinker65]

11. I hope countries retaliate. Germany should. The countries we deny should.

And since Trump's mind and what he "thinks" changes by the minute, the court gave him the authority to arbitrarily manipulate foreign travel the way he does the stock market. If I were a foriegn tourist or businessperson, I would forgo any future travel plans to the US. Trump is too unstable and unpredictable, if he sees something on the internet that makes fun of him from a foreign country, he might see that as a threat.

[lunasun]

14. Not enough outrage at congress refusing Obamas SC appointment . Saved it for Hilary's emails

[mahatmakanejeeves]

24. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. HAWAII ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

Live blog of opinions (with SCOTUS Map and First Mondays)

[MosheFeingold]

30. Well, I'm going to be nuked for saying this

But I have lived a long time, and play the long game. I've seen many presidents come and go. I have learned the office of the president must be protected, regardless of what foul denizen occupies it.

As admirable as the desire to stop bigoted Trump on this issue is, the separation of powers is paramount. And, sadly, Trump was very clearly acting within the scope of his authority under both the statute and the Constitution. The decision is legally correct.

The solution to this injustice lies not with the courts, but with the ballot box.

[Calista241]

37. I happen to agree with you on this point.

Trump is a douchebag, but he's currently occupying the office of the Presidency. Vote people.

[Iaorana]

45. So much bad analysis from some quarters on this issue

In my Con Law and Crim Pro classes the border cases received very cursory treatment in order to make time for other topics. The justification being the law is simple - you have no rights at the border. This has been the law since King Tut.

The way in which some, like Prof. Tribe, made blanket assertions that this was plainly unconstitutional, and a slam dunk for plaintiffs seemed counterproductive.

[Civic Justice]

61. Never feel bad about telling the truth !!

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2018, 03:37 PM - Edit history (2)

I wrote a piece yesterday, that asked a question, it was an far fetched options that does exist, and... I added commentary... and people went crazy...

The point of the piece was to talk about options.. and options that no one likes... because if we don't find a way to make people aware and understand what our Democratic Ideals are... we may be forced to options that no one ever imagined.

Short of that "extreme" option... it should have been clear to people...
that the best way to never have to face extreme options of such, is: to do things it to communicate and make the general public aware of HOW we would do things different and how we can make it better....

Hell, we know that we don't want to be like some third world country that use the military to change leaders, and we have helped some do exactly that..

But here... we can only change thing when people are informed... If they are given a bad set of variable they will chose it, when they have no one explaining to them what the alternative is and how the alternative can benefit them..

As Democrats we better learn that lesson well..... if we don't want to descend into being forced to have choice of options like a third world country....

[Snellius]

76. Separation of powers is not the issue. It's abuse of power.

The president has gone well beyond the scope of his authority. He is responsible by the Constitution for protecting the borders of the country and who gets in. But this ban has nothing to do with national security. This was a political campaign PR stunt cooked up by Bannon to pretend how tough he was on "radical Islamic terrorism". But the countries chosen were more or less picked out of a hat of weaker Muslim countries with no justification that terrorists were more likely to come from those places than from Tasmania or France.

[Maxheader]

32. Let the states decide...supremes

are neanderthals....high sloping foreheads...tree dwellers...

[SylviaD]

36. THIS COURT IS ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!! nt

[LonePirate]

38. I blame Kennedy for this horrible decision and several others this year.

He is supposed to be the moderate, swing vote on the court and yet on every issue , he sided with those who want to destroy our country. We knew Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch were all right-wing assholes. Kennedy should have known better to side with them on anything, let alone on everything.

[FBaggins]

50. He has long been the swing vote, but he was never moderate

He's been a conservative on most issues since the beginning. O'Connor was closer to a moderate when she was the 5th vote, but the court moved decidedly to the right when she was replaced by Alito on the bench and by Kennedy in the nominal center.

Of course if he retires this year then Roberts becomes the center of the court.

[RhodeIslandOne]

40. There's no difference between the two

And her emails.

[turbinetree]

41. The chief racist writes the opinion(s)..........................go figure

He also wrote the opinion on voting and attacked that legislation you know the 1964 Voting Rights Act...............

He also wrote the opinion on Citizens United...............


And he wrote the opinion to really fuck people out of health care.............in the long run...............


And now he has written the opinion on how to be a fucking racists.................that emboldens fear and hate.............



And people wonder why I think he should be Impeached..........right along with the other right wing neo-fascist(s) sitting on the court...............


The American Prospect has two very good article(s) of and about this right wing court..............and John Roberts, he is not a friend of the middle class and working poor far from it .......................

http://prospect.org/article/roberts-rules-protecting-corporations


http://prospect.org/article/repealing-20th-century


and then his record on voting...............

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222

[Tactical Peek]

46. Thanks, Comey.

[nycbos]

47. I am wondering if the leftist purists who said...

... “they couldn’t consciously support Hillary” because there was no difference can see the difference now. My guessing is no they will continue to whine about “the establishment.”

[sinkingfeeling]

48. We are officially a fascist nation

[duforsure]

52. If the Senate isn't retaken

This will get a lot worse as long as mitch has control.

[Hoyt]

54. Considering this is the 3rd version of the travel ban and has been in effect awhile, don't think we

lost much. Every "loss" hurts when trump is involved, but he didn't gain much here other than some tenuous rationale to say I "won."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/24/17268568/muslim-travel-ban-supreme-court

[Jake Stern]

79. Silver Lining: SCOTUS just handed the president broad authority concerning immigration

Perhaps when a Dem president re-instates DACA they can use this as a precedent to defend it.