I do I admit, get a chuckle how many struggle to find fresh names/labels, in an attempt to toss an insult my direction.
Hint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0l7RFsde2M
Moderator: Team
I do I admit, get a chuckle how many struggle to find fresh names/labels, in an attempt to toss an insult my direction.
Its one of the reasons you frequent here, you like it. Got anymore selfy's?j-c-c wrote: ↑Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:00 pmI do I admit, get a chuckle how many struggle to find fresh names/labels, in an attempt to toss an insult my direction.
Hint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0l7RFsde2M
The U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of President Donald Trump in Trump v. Hawaii, the controversial case regarding concerning Trump's September order to restrict travel to the U.S. for citizens of several majority Muslim countries.
The case has been central to the Trump administration's immigration policy, presenting a key test of the president's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure America's borders.
The immigration restriction is the Trump administration's third, and affects people from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. * was dropped from the list of affected countries in April.
Previous iterations of the ban were revised after facing challenges in court.
Hawaii alleged that the immigration restriction was motivated by religious discrimination, noting that a majority of the countries included in the ban have primarily Muslim populations. During oral argument in April, Neil Katyal, attorney for the challengers in the case, cited Trump's post-election tweets about the case, and argued that the travel restriction amounted to a "Muslim ban."
The government argued that "it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine."
"Not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders, including Iraq, *, and Sudan," Noel Francisco, the solicitor general, told the court.
Among the tweets at issue in the case is one from September in which the president wrote that the "travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"
Katyal also cited Trump's retweeting of what Katyal called "virulent anti-Muslim videos" in November of last year. The videos had titles such as "Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!" and "Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!"
The president has said that the ban is not about Islam.
"This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe," the president said in January, after facing criticism over the first iteration of the order.
That initial order, signed in the first weeks of the Trump administration, led to days of protests around the country, with thousands gathering at airports to demonstrate.
Thought we covered this? Is there an echo here?Ken0069 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:45 amWINNING!!!! BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, KABOOM!!
Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban
The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme ... -case.html!
The U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of President Donald Trump in Trump v. Hawaii, the controversial case regarding concerning Trump's September order to restrict travel to the U.S. for citizens of several majority Muslim countries.
The case has been central to the Trump administration's immigration policy, presenting a key test of the president's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure America's borders.
The immigration restriction is the Trump administration's third, and affects people from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. * was dropped from the list of affected countries in April.
Previous iterations of the ban were revised after facing challenges in court.
Hawaii alleged that the immigration restriction was motivated by religious discrimination, noting that a majority of the countries included in the ban have primarily Muslim populations. During oral argument in April, Neil Katyal, attorney for the challengers in the case, cited Trump's post-election tweets about the case, and argued that the travel restriction amounted to a "Muslim ban."
The government argued that "it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine."
"Not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders, including Iraq, *, and Sudan," Noel Francisco, the solicitor general, told the court.
Among the tweets at issue in the case is one from September in which the president wrote that the "travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"
Katyal also cited Trump's retweeting of what Katyal called "virulent anti-Muslim videos" in November of last year. The videos had titles such as "Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!" and "Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!"
The president has said that the ban is not about Islam.
"This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe," the president said in January, after facing criticism over the first iteration of the order.
That initial order, signed in the first weeks of the Trump administration, led to days of protests around the country, with thousands gathering at airports to demonstrate.
that would be funny as can be!David Redszus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:36 pmSince ex-president Obuma has announced travel plan to include Kenya, could Trump prevent his return under the ban on the basis that he is a Muslim terrorist who has harmed the US?
Could be tied up in court for quite some time while keeping Obuma out of the US.
Donald Trump campaign website, Statement on preventing Muslim immigration, Dec. 7, 2017
No reason to count chickens, communism is in a downward spiral in this country, its like a plane out of control, then as the ground comes closer, the out come is then evident.j-c-c wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:27 pm4-5 along Party lines is a win in your eyes, but this nation has long list of important at the times, rulings with a much larger margins ,that all got overturned, and rightfully so, for instance:
https://www.infoplease.com/history-and- ... guson-1896
Count your chickens Quickly.
Sorry, maybe I should have said, count your slaves quickly?exhaustgases wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:50 pmNo reason to count chickens, communism is in a downward spiral in this country, its like a plane out of control, then as the ground comes closer, the out come is then evident.j-c-c wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:27 pm4-5 along Party lines is a win in your eyes, but this nation has long list of important at the times, rulings with a much larger margins ,that all got overturned, and rightfully so, for instance:
https://www.infoplease.com/history-and- ... guson-1896
Count your chickens Quickly.
Count your chickens Quickly.
What in the hell do chickens and slaves have to do with protecting our country against Islamic terrorism?Sorry, maybe I should have said, count your slaves quickly?