-
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
Um...you are aware of the current composition of the court, right?
Please tell me how that is Obama's fault. Mitch refused to hold a vote.
Do any of our 3 branches of government work as intended at this point
Checks and balances my ass
Checks and balances my ass
If Mitch hadn't fucked us all over, then RBG retiring wouldn't be as damaging as it's going to be. There really is no such thing as a good Republican anymore.
No actually let's start with just fucking voting. If we had a President Clinton with a Democratic Senate right now, this ruling wouldn't have happened (not that the Muslim ban would've happened in the first place anyway).
Still doesn't feel like cheeto loses in 2020, people will be divided on the left.
The president can only make the selection. They have no Consitutional authority to compel a vote in Congress.
Elections have consequences and Garland's stolen seat was indeed one of the greatest political heists of the century. The just absolute balls on the Republicans to deny holding a hearing on a qualified candidate for over a year is unbelievable. I doubt Democrats would ever have the guts or sliminess to do that.
Obama's biggest flaw was believing in the constitution/system it enacted.
He believe in the good of the people.
It isn't his fault that the system is broken.
5-4. Expect to see this breakdown a lot during this administration. Mitch McConnell will go down in American history as one of its worst villains. I just hope this will motivate everyone to get out in vote in November. I'll be personally taking everyone I know to the polls myself if I have to
Funny thing is with Pelosi's tweet yesterday it shows the democrats have learned nothing from the last 9 years.
If you're civil to people who are uncivil you're going to get fucked over. They literally stole a SC seat and yet you're told to let them eat cake in peace.
If you're civil to people who are uncivil you're going to get fucked over. They literally stole a SC seat and yet you're told to let them eat cake in peace.
User Banned (3 Days): Trolling + Junior Account
Whoa, let's not do anything crazy!
If they don't, they may as well take their ball and go home. You're in to win or you're not. Republicans have shown time and time again they will get down in the mud to win at all costs.
Not just refused a vote, refused even a hearing!
I don't know about that, but I do think Trump is more likely to win than lose if for no other reason than dumb independents who do not engage in politics until the last weeks of a campaign are typically willing to give incumbents the benefit of the doubt for a second term. This is still the same country that re-elected Bush - and with him, a Republican congress - despite having learned that he led the country into war based on a lie. The only way Trump loses re-election is if the economy sinks and/or healthcare costs skyrocket even more.
Democrats stay losing because they can't play the sociopath game as good as Repubs.
It absolutely feels like he loses in 2020 if you go by any of the myriad of evidence instead of just going with your gut.
Yeah, what could Obama have done?
"Elections have consequences" truly is the answer here.
Get the fuck out and vote in November, people.
Pointed out by SCOTUSblog, the majority disavows Korematsu (I don't think the Court has ever explicitly done that before):
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—"has no place in law under the Constitution." 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—"has no place in law under the Constitution." 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
