Immigration Ban Hearing

[Parkbandit]

I hate to spoil it for you, but if this court rules against Trump, then the Supreme Court will definitely take the case and will definitely rule in Trump's favor. It's just common sense that the President should be able to stop immigration temporarily from a country when he deems it to be dangerous, and it's equally common sense that the courts are not qualified to second guess his decisions.

Look up the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

It's pretty black and white.

This will be ruled in favor of Trump. Maybe not by the liberal 9th Circuit.. but definitely by the SCOTUS.

[time4fun]

Look up the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

It's pretty black and white.

This will be ruled in favor of Trump. Maybe not by the liberal 9th Circuit.. but definitely by the SCOTUS.

You do you realize that the Hart-Celler Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act) amended that 1952 bill to outlaw the use of national origin as a determining factor of immigration, right?

When someone says something as vague as "If you just read this 1952 bill, it'll be obvious"- it means that person hasn't actually read it, wouldn't understand it anyway, and needs to stop getting their news from junk news sites.

The amount of time you people run around calling people stupid could've actually been used to learn something at some point in time.

[Parkbandit]

You do you realize that the Hart-Celler Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act) amended that 1952 bill to outlaw the use of national origin as a determining factor of immigration, right?

When someone says something as vague as "If you just read this 1952 bill, it'll be obvious"- it means that person hasn't actually read it, wouldn't understand it anyway, and needs to stop getting their news from junk news sites.

The amount of time you people run around calling people stupid could've actually been used to learn something at some point in time.

Would you care to make a wager about SCOTUS upholding in favor of the Trump Administration? I doubt you read either act.. but it's clear you didn't understand them.

A President has broad power in issuing a temporary ban from any country he/she (lol.. not Hillary though!) feels threatens the safety and well being of the country.

I would not be surprised that this very liberal Circuit will vote in favor of going against the President.. but then again, they have been overturned more than any other Circuit in the country..

Let's make the wager that you have to use the avatar of my choosing for the entire month of March if you lose and vica versa if I lose.

[Neveragain]

You do you realize that the Hart-Celler Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act) amended that 1952 bill to outlaw the use of national origin as a determining factor of immigration, right?

When someone says something as vague as "If you just read this 1952 bill, it'll be obvious"- it means that person hasn't actually read it, wouldn't understand it anyway, and needs to stop getting their news from junk news sites.

The amount of time you people run around calling people stupid could've actually been used to learn something at some point in time.

More than anything I think it's sad as fuck that people like you would put American citizens at risk simply because you didn't win an election, let alone use people as political props. We all know that's what this is.

[time4fun]

9th Circuit is definitely not thrilled with the Trump administration's legal arguments. I missed a big chunk of the early arguments, but it looks like the takeaways are:

9th Circuit skeptical of the argument that Trump's campaign statements don't have bearing in this case, skeptical that there's any evidence that it's a necessary action for security, skeptical that this isn't just a Muslim ban, and skeptical that there's enough information for them to make an actual decision right now. (Good chance they refuse to stay the injunction and push back to the lower Court).

9th Circuit was also skeptical, on the other hand, of the interpretation of the '65 amendment as being relevant to this situation. Also some concern about standing (though not nearly as much as I had thought there would be) and due deference to the Executive.

So it's by no means a slam dunk for either side, but it's almost unthinkable that they'll stay the injunction at this point. The Trump Administration's lawyers just didn't make a compelling argument as to why the injunction is more damaging than a stay would be.

[Kembal]

Thanks to Dirty Harry Reid, we won't have to worry about the 4-4 split. It'll be 5-4 upheld in favor of the Trump Administration.

Gorsuch won't be confirmed in time to vote on this TRO. He'll probably be confirmed by mid-March.

It'll be months before this gets to SCOTUS on the legality of the EO itself, as opposed to the current hearings on the TRO.

[time4fun]

More than anything I think it's sad as fuck that people like you would put American citizens at risk simply because you didn't win an election, let alone use people as political props. We all know that's what this is.

This case is being decided on legal merits- mostly dry procedural stuff- it's not being decided on Congressional vote. The election outcome couldn't have anything less to do with this except insofar as no other President would dare write up such a shoddy and dangerous EO.

Trump overstepped his bounds on this one. We are a nation of laws which he does not have the authority to overrule. Now please stop giving ISIS recruiting fodder because you don't understand geopolitics.

[Tgo01]

Now please stop giving ISIS recruiting fodder because you don't understand geopolitics.

I wonder if Democrats realize how highly insulting it is to Muslims to insist a Muslim is always mere inches away from becoming a terrorist.

Imagine if there was some sort of radical feminist terrorist group that blew up people and buildings and raged war across the world and took prisoners and chopped off people's hands and forced people to become sex slaves, then some man stands up and says "We can't do <insert cause here> because if we do we'll turn more women into radical feminists who murder small children!"

[drauz]

I wonder if Democrats realize how highly insulting it is to Muslims to insist a Muslim is always mere inches away from becoming a terrorist.

Imagine if there was some sort of radical feminist terrorist group that blew up people and buildings and raged war across the world and took prisoners and chopped off people's hands and forced people to become sex slaves, then some man stands up and says "We can't do <insert cause here> because if we do we'll turn more women into radical feminists who murder small children!"

[Parkbandit]

This case is being decided on legal merits- mostly dry procedural stuff- it's not being decided on Congressional vote. The election outcome couldn't have anything less to do with this except insofar as no other President would dare write up such a shoddy and dangerous EO.

Trump overstepped his bounds on this one. We are a nation of laws which he does not have the authority to overrule. Now please stop giving ISIS recruiting fodder because you don't understand geopolitics.

Wait..

"We are a nation of laws" from the girl who is hiding an illegal alien in her home?

You're a real piece of work. Maybe you should change it to "We are a nation of laws.. as long as I agree with them"