Trump's Travel Ban

[taiyuu_otoko]

From what I see, a large percentage of these radical leftist rulings by the 9th gets overturned by the Supreme Court, and rightfully so.

Source

n 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an incredible 86 percent of the decisions it reviewed from that court. The circuit previously struck down the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase “under God.” It has also found that citizens have no constitutional right to own guns.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

What's your data? Data don't lie... people do based on their emotions

You're right. Data doesn't lie. And the data indicates that terrorism comes predominantly from Muslims.

Actually Saudi Arabia who finances ISIS is still an American ally

Totally irrelevant.

Iran ban was mostly due to Israel lobbying and also...

Oh yes, the invisible "Jewish lobby" again. If Muslim terror is the topic, find a way to pivot and blame the Jews.

Nothing to do with "death to America" chants and virulently anti-American propaganda the government feeds it's population, which may then inspire terror attacks in people who come here. If you don't believe me go watch Press TV for an hour (but then again, you might agree with it). In 2017, this isn't an issue in Saudi Arabia. Saudis generally have a very positive view of America due to positive propaganda images of their kings kissing our Presidents.

 

[Von]

You're right. Data doesn't lie. And the data indicates that terrorism comes predominantly from Muslims.



Totally irrelevant.



Oh yes, the invisible "Jewish lobby" again. If Muslim terror is the topic, find a way to pivot and blame the Jews.

Nothing to do with "death to America" chants and virulently anti-American propaganda the government feeds it's population, which may then inspire terror attacks in people who come here. If you don't believe me go watch Press TV for an hour (but then again, you might agree with it). In 2017, this isn't an issue in Saudi Arabia. Saudis generally have a very positive view of America due to positive propaganda images of their kings kissing our Presidents.

You pay taxes for the israeli défense fund if you in the usa.

Does it represent you?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Regarding the 9th Circus and getting over-ruled by the Supremes, yes that does happen a lot. But typically for the Supremes to take a case, there will be conflicting rulings from multiple Federal districts, which is not the case here. Cases like this involving the president often get fast-tracked and don't have to wait around for years like everyone else. They are very rare, and thus statistics about other types of cases don't really apply that well

 

[Bible_Belt]

There was a decision out of Boston, but the conflict in the ruling was minor:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/judge-hear-bid-extend-order-trump-travel-ban-45237826

Snopes just made a page about the misleading 80% statistic: http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

So, although correctly worded, the blog post left many readers with the mistaken impression that 80 percent of the Ninth Circuit Court’s decisions were being overturned by SCOTUS. What it actually said was that of the very tiny fraction of decisions by federal courts of appeal that SCOTUS agrees to review each year (0.1%), 80 percent of that small portion of appeals originating with the Ninth Circuit Court were overturned.

In short, social media claims that 80 percent of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit were overturned were flat out false; more than 99 percent of that circuit’s decisions stood and the Supreme Court reviewed a scant 0.106 percent of circuit court cases each year. Although figures from 2010 maintained the “Ninth Circuit [had] the second highest reversal rate at 80 [percent],” the “highest” was the Federal Circuit court’s median of 83 percent. However, left out of both the rumors and the blog post was the fact that the average rate of accepted cases ruled upon differently by the Supreme Court than a lower circuit court was over 68 percent across all courts. So of less than one percent of all cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 68 percent of decisions across all circuits were overturned. Eighty percent of decisions by the Ninth Circuit were overturned when escalated to the Supreme Court, but the numbers were misleading taken out of context.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The very right-wing Cato Institute issued a statement about Trump's other, more recent, executive orders concerning law enforcement:

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-executive-orders-crime
Trump’s heart may be in the right place. He notes the awful circumstances in so many of our cities for poor minorities who have to live in violent neighborhoods and attend lousy schools. Unfortunately, Trump seems to view the Constitution’s separation and division of powers as bugs instead of features. To paraphrase The Cato Handbook for Policymakers, the identification of a problem does not mean that the government should undertake to solve it, and the fact that a problem occurs in more than one state (carjackings, lousy schools, obesity, termites) does not mean that it is a proper subject for federal policy.

 

[Bible_Belt]

How is it unconstitutional to block islamic foreigners from entering the US, but constitutional to punish white citizens for being white?

First of all, affirmative action has very little to do with this debate. Most of what the supreme court has said about that topic relates to the U of Michigan cases and them giving admission preferences to minorities. To say that's punishing white people for being white is a radical oversimplification. If you don't like it, don't apply to the University of Michigan, or U Cal Berkley, or any of those liberal places you hate. Go to Jerry Falwell's school; I doubt they have an affirmative action policy.

And as far as blocking Islamic anything, the law may not, n-o-t...NOT, single out one religion. That's the express ticket to unconstitutionality. These orders were written by someone who had a high school level understanding of the law. That's why they hid them from the lawyers.

Now, Team Trump is scrambling to re-write those orders. But here's the rub. Let's say they publish a newly written order, approved by at least a few hand-picked rightwing nutball lawyers like Jeff Sessions, and then go to court on that one. A large portion of the court's analysis on the new order will be on its intent. Does it intend to discriminate against a protected class? Team Trump has to tell the judge with a straight face that even though the last one might have, this one doesn't, we promise. We TOTALLY changed our policy intent in just a few weeks. They're going to feed that line of sh!t to a judge, while constantly attacking through twitter, as Gorush put it, "my brothers and sisters of the robe." Good luck with that.

 

[Bible_Belt]

...the appeals court ruling threw more than one obstacle in the administration’s path. It also asserted that even non-residents who have never been to the U.S., like refugees, are still entitled to due process rights — such as providing notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. The court suggested that the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment are not limited to U.S. citizens.

Back to this point, I think where all of this will end up is in a vast expansion of Constitutional rights, equating them to basic human rights, which is a victory for the left, but I think also a victory for the Constitution. Let's not forget that under Obama's watch, it became ok for the government to murder American citizens without a trial, as long as they said it was for the war on terror. That just happened the recent botched raid in Yemen, where we killed an 8 y/o girl who was an American citizen, pretty much on purpose. Bad guys withdrew to a civilian apartment complex, and we called in air strikes on those buildings. They knew damn well she was in there. Before Obama, we would have retreated and not called in an air strike on a civilian American citizen. That used to be a no-no under the Constitution, until the Supreme Court finally said it was ok - a victory for the right and a loss for the Constitution. Now, the pendulum is set to swing back the other way.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

That used to be a no-no under the Constitution, until the Supreme Court finally said it was ok - a victory for the right and a loss for the Constitution.

So it's possible for the supreme court to rule in a way that's considered a "loss" for the constitution? I thought they had the final say about the interpretation of the constitution?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Source

The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump's travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump's order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks. In fact, as a new report finds, 72 individuals from the seven 'mostly Muslim countries' covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11.

 

[Bible_Belt]

So it's possible for the supreme court to rule in a way that's considered a "loss" for the constitution? I thought they had the final say about the interpretation of the constitution?

True. They do sometimes re-visit an issue and correct themselves, but they do have the final say. I guess I should say, "a win for the rights afforded to individuals under the Constitution." The new right-to-murder rule would be a loss for those rights, but a victory for the power of the executive branch.

The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump's travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump's order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Alternative facts are trendy these days. It is still not material enough to make a difference in the ruling.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Alternative facts are trendy these days.

Nothing alternative about it. He said one thing, and the evidence indicated otherwise.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Ultimately, when the courts deny citizens rights but grant those same rights to foreigners, you know the system is broken.

Two examples have been given in this thread of such a travesty.

You can complain about affirmative action all you want. The 1st Amendment gives you that right.

But that's what's coming as the end result of President Tough Talk, constitutional rights for foreigners. That's going to be Trump's legacy - all the new rights he gave to Muslim people when his ignorant policies backfired in court.

 

[Bible_Belt]

5 reasonable justices and 4 liberals who hate US Citizens

They take their coffee together each morning. Whatever divide you see - they don't see it. They see, as Gorsuch put so eloquently, nine "brothers and sisters of the robe." They might disagree, but they're all in the same club, including those other district and appeals judges that Trump rips on every time he loses.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Bible says the government can't restrict anything Islamic. But "freedom of religion" has limits. If your religion calls for you to kill infidels and eventually overthrow democracy and replace with Sharia law, be assured your freedom of religion will be curtailed.

If there was a religion called Pluckism, which required that every 3rd child have his eye plucked out by his parents on 3rd birthday, the government would ban elements of Pluckism. You don't get to act like a barbaric savage under the guise of "religion". Islam is more of a political movement than a religion in 2017 anyway.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Killing people and blowing up sh!t is already illegal. The people who do that feed off the War on Islam idea, on the idea that we are taking out our anger on innocent people, which is exactly what is going on lately.

This country was built on freedom of religion. Maybe they should have clarified that they meant variations of Christianity, but that never happened. It is an interesting philosophical question - how would the founding fathers view the war on terrorism? I think they would be very harshly conservative, but that is a product of being from their time. The Constitution is a living document; that's why it has lasted so long. Freedom of religion has evolved to mean all religions, including Islam. That is where we are today.

Remember, the Constitution and the 1st Amendment are the reason we get to have this conversation right now. And I'm not just talking about comparing us to dictatorships. Go to Germany or just across the border in Canada, and they have codified a tort called "insult." That means Danger said something that offends me, so I get to sue him for money...and win. But not in America, thanks to the 1st Amendment. Let's not chip away at the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorists. That document protects all of us.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Killing people and blowing up sh!t is already illegal. The people who do that feed off the War on Islam idea, on the idea that we are taking out our anger on innocent people, which is exactly what is going on lately.

This kind of excuse making is very flawed thinking. Have we probably created more terrorists out of people who were already on the brink after we blew up their cousins? Sure.

But did a lot of Islamic terrorism exist before American imperialism? Yes. This idea that they wouldn't hate us but for our missteps in the middle east is a fiction. Don't believe? Ask the victims of Islamic terrorism in Brussels, Berlin, Mumbai, Madrid, the Philippines. Should I keep going? Were these citizens of imperialist aggressor countries, or might a disproportionate number of Muslims hate the infidel regardless?

Freedom of religion has evolved to mean all religions, including Islam. That is where we are today.

Indeed, up to but stopping at blowing up buildings. And when your religion is the outlier that keeps blowing things up, we can alter immigration policy without shutting down mosques and rounding up American Muslims. The Constitution says nothing about perennial open borders

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Discriminating on race is illegal, yet whites are still discriminated against today via Affirmative action.

Isn't that just insane?

And it's rather funny. Anti-white racists love to assert that racism has to do with "power" and "institutions". Of course, racism is not so complex that you have to allude to vague inferences to invisible power. That's a myth that non-white racists use as a get out of jail free card for their own racism which is really just prejudiced based on ethnicity, but still let's work on their false premise for a moment.

Is there no greater example of "institutional racism" than affirmative action? It is an institution that is prevalent in multiple industries from jobs to schools, and a very "powerful" one at that because most people are against it by now but it's been impossible to remove.

The greatest victims of institutional racism post-1970 are white men.

 

[Bible_Belt]

you and other liberals

I'm on the side of the citizens versus their government, and especially the citizens we hate the most. As soon as you strip away their rights, the government is going to turn around and use that power against you. Maybe you made a post to a web forum deemed as radical - they're going to call you a terrorist and come for you. At that point, you have as many rights as you think the terrorists deserve right now.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

It's nuts. Mind blowing at the mental contortions these people go through in their hate for whites, men, and christians.

Indeed.

But let me tell you, from an atheist's perspective, we are also getting HAMMERED by the grievance industry. Have you seen the vicious feuding between the feminist/racist/Islamophobia/Progressive crowd and their treatment of "New Atheists" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher? All three of those men are classic liberals who aren't afraid to call a spade a spade on Islam and race, but they have their characters assassinated by the radical left for it.

This creates a unique alliance between Christians and atheists, because I can see that the attacks on Christianity are totally bogus and out of proportion. Not all religions are equal, and Islam is by far the worst.

I am also a classic liberal on social issues, and you and I would disagree on the minimum wage, marijuana, and gay marriage. But I understand that the greatest threat to our freedoms today comes from the far left, not the Westboro Baptist Church or some Christian in Kansas refusing to bake a cake.

So in some way I become strange bedfellows with the Christian right. Radical Christianity is a church of 35 people holding up vile signs. Radical Islam is trying to overthrow 5 continents.