Their conclusion is that it's the President's authority to do so.
Can the outrage about people being banned because they are Muslims continue on with your permission?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
AP: Supreme Court upholds Trump ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries.
- Thread starter Deleted member 431
- Start date
Can the outrage about people being banned because they are Muslims continue on with your permission?
The GOP are evil, they were always going to break the rules, Obama had so much time to do something, but he didn't. He made nice with these animals and got mauled. He appointed Comey, he refused to let it leak that the Trump campaign was being investigated, he was always playing it safe and fair. He never broke the rules, but maybe he should have.
Mitch and his gang of outlaws set a terrible precedent by obstructing Garland's nomination. I just hope the dems will control the senate if a seat opens so they can obstruct it for 2 long years as retaliation.
People that didn't vote + Russia + Comey fucked us and the consequences will still be upon us when we're all silver-haired.
Your vote MATTERS. If Ruth retires before Dems get congress back we'll be fucked for generations.
Your vote MATTERS. If Ruth retires before Dems get congress back we'll be fucked for generations.
They almost definitely wouldn't deny someone a hearing, but that shit isn't even necessary anyway. I don't for a second think that Dems would vote in another Gorsuch if they have majority control of the Senate, which is all that really matters.
I too am looking forward to Judge Jenine Pirro of the Supreme Court.
Gonna read the opinion now but off the top of my head I'm going to guess a combination of:
A) The wide discretion the President has regarding National Security/Foreign Affairs and the Court's limited ability to question the Executive's rationale.
B) That public statements/legislative history is meaningless and they need only look at the law. Thus, all of Trump's public statements which clearly showed it was a racial thing should be ignored because it's irrelevant to whether the action on its face is unconstitutional.
C) The fact that the Executive Order was amended to be more in line with the law and thus the original petitioners challenge is no longer an issue.
A) The wide discretion the President has regarding National Security/Foreign Affairs and the Court's limited ability to question the Executive's rationale.
B) That public statements/legislative history is meaningless and they need only look at the law. Thus, all of Trump's public statements which clearly showed it was a racial thing should be ignored because it's irrelevant to whether the action on its face is unconstitutional.
C) The fact that the Executive Order was amended to be more in line with the law and thus the original petitioners challenge is no longer an issue.
What does any of this have to do with Garland being denied? Obama couldn't do anything about that.
Mild shock gif. Followed by hand on forehead. Stolen seat. We're gonna be in for a bad time now. They're making political rulings or refusing to make a ruling.
"But but *unrelated thing*" If you think the current situation is even remotely similar to 2016 than you might be stupid.
Elections have consequences, folks.
Or maybe dems should field a better candidate and learn where Wisconsin is?
Or maybe dems should field a better candidate and learn where Wisconsin is?
Is the full opinion anywhere?
N/M. Found it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
N/M. Found it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
The last line of defense is armed conflict. We aren't there yet thankfully.
There was nothing to do. All Obama can do is make the nomination. It's not up to him to hold hearings or votes; he doesn't have that power.
(Technically he could theoretically put Garland on the bench via recess appointment, but Senate Republicans were already having one member keep the chamber indefinitely in session to prevent there being a real recess.)
We're supposed to be government of, by, and for the people.
In my lifetime, republicans have only won the popular vote in 2 out of 8 elections (1988 and 2004, and 2004 was a re-election of someone who got into office while losing the vote), yet they've filled 5 out of 9 supreme court justice vacancies.
Shit's stolen. Realistically we should have a 6-3 or 7-2 split, not a 4-5 split
Blame Joe Biden, not Mitch McConnell or Obama.
Senator Joe Biden was the one who first suggested a President should not nominate a a SCOTUS judge during an election year.
RBG is a justice because of the same "rule" - they held up George HW Bush during his last year and let Clinton pick the Justice after he won the election. That justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
This is why you need steadfast laws to prevent holdups and obstruction.
Garland would have been denied anyway even if they did bring him up for nomination hearings. You gotta have a majority in Congress to get the Justice your really want.
Senator Joe Biden was the one who first suggested a President should not nominate a a SCOTUS judge during an election year.
RBG is a justice because of the same "rule" - they held up George HW Bush during his last year and let Clinton pick the Justice after he won the election. That justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
This is why you need steadfast laws to prevent holdups and obstruction.
Garland would have been denied anyway even if they did bring him up for nomination hearings. You gotta have a majority in Congress to get the Justice your really want.
There are a wide variety of ways to pressure a hostile Congress. After the first week there was zero noise from the Obama admin on the issue, despite it going on for 8 months. I remember posting during that time, asking why they didn't at least have talking heads on news networks pointing out the blatant obstruction. Like everyone else, he figured Trump losing was a sure thing and he didn't want to burn the political capital.
Or both. But Hillary was 100000000x a better candidate than the dumpster fire that is Donald Trump. We can lay plenty of blame on the DNC, but ultimately, the blame lies on the stupidity of the American electorate for allowing this fascist to come to power.
It'll be interesting to see how Trumps little Tariff war will impact things.
They don't care, a large majority don't care because this will never effect them, not even a blip on their radar. People are going to have a hard time understanding why people are upset.
Nor would they be allowed to. I give it all of a week before they would cave and step back from their position. One of these parties has a dedicated propaganda arm that shields it from scrutiny, and at the same time makes them seem like victims when the need is called for.
really? isn't this incredibly frustrating considering he shouldn't even be there?
it was Obama's pick to make, right?
i don't know how Americans can just let all this happen.
Fuck.
I've always said I didn't want to leave this country based solely on the political situation, but I'm feeling closer to wanting to than I ever have before, especially when I see the thought that Trump could potentially nominate another SC justice. There would just be no point in staying if that happened.
I've always said I didn't want to leave this country based solely on the political situation, but I'm feeling closer to wanting to than I ever have before, especially when I see the thought that Trump could potentially nominate another SC justice. There would just be no point in staying if that happened.
yes, the Republican Congress of 2015-17 was well known for buckling to pressure from Barack Obama. We're talking about the same Congress that moved to allow 9/11 families sue Saudi Arabia over Obama's protestations not to, and then blamed Obama for letting them do it and not warning them about the dangers of doing so (risks he had already shared) in the first place.
Obama badgered McConnell and the Senate for not even giving Garland a hearing, but nobody cared. Dems don't care enough about SCOTUS and judicial picks; Republicans actually used it as an excuse to get over their reservations about Trump and elect him anyway; and the media was too busy devoting wall-to-wall coverage of empty podiums at Trump campaign rallies to give too much of a shit.
What rule is there to break? The selection process is in the Constitution. The president only has the right to nominate.
Because we had an election and the stakes for it were quite clear. Nobody's letting this happen; it happened because Donald Trump won the presidency.
