Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump travel ban

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/supreme-court-permits-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban.html

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

#tiredofwinning 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

  #probablyshouldholdoffoncallingbotchedtaxreformawinuntilweactuallyseewhattheheckitwastheypassed

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  #probablyshouldholdoffoncallingbotchedtaxreformawinuntilweactuallyseewhattheheckitwastheypassed

they have to pass it to find out what is in it........

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Ban Hammer said:

they have to pass it to find out what is in it........

 

     A couple of senators said they were not even going to read it. I can see the appeal of politics sometimes. Where else can people get paid for actually not doing their job?

[yuna628 9,676]

Permitted for now NB, while it is still on appeal in the lower courts. They did not rule on the merits or legality of it, mainly because they already had admonished the administration earlier, which resulted in ban 3.0 where they were apt to be more comfortable on the limits. Check out Somin's take on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/04/supreme-court-lifts-temporary-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban-3-0 

[Póg mo 1,749]

42 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     A couple of senators said they were not even going to read it. I can see the appeal of politics sometimes. Where else can people get paid for actually not doing their job?

Remember how we were told that ACA  was a bad law, because nobody read that bill. 

[Boiler 45,519]

19 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Remember how we were told that ACA  was a bad law, because nobody read that bill. 

I do, I said it.

[Dunngary 37]

24 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Remember how we were told that ACA  was a bad law, because nobody read that bill. 

They were wrong. Why bother reading a bill before signing it into law?

[jayjayj 571]

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Permitted for now NB, while it is still on appeal in the lower courts. They did not rule on the merits or legality of it, mainly because they already had admonished the administration earlier, which resulted in ban 3.0 where they were apt to be more comfortable on the limits. Check out Somin's take on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/04/supreme-court-lifts-temporary-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban-3-0 

Saying it is "permitted for now" isn't correct terminology.  To be accurate, you need to say it "is not blocked for now".  The President is well within his Constitutional power to limit immigration, as he sees fit.  He can make that order whenever he wants and he doesn't need an activist judge's permission to do so.

[Dashinka 24,502]

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Permitted for now NB, while it is still on appeal in the lower courts. They did not rule on the merits or legality of it, mainly because they already had admonished the administration earlier, which resulted in ban 3.0 where they were apt to be more comfortable on the limits. Check out Somin's take on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/04/supreme-court-lifts-temporary-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban-3-0 

Here is another learned opinion.

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/05/supreme-court-reinstates-the-trump-travel-ban-in-lifting-lower-court-injunctions/comment-page-1/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Remember how we were told that ACA  was a bad law, because nobody read that bill. 

 

 Yeah I remember the GOP's reaction to Pelosi saying that. That's why it's incredulous to see them do the same thing. 

[Dashinka 24,502]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 Yeah I remember the GOP's reaction to Pelosi saying that. That's why it's incredulous to see them do the same thing. 

Is this a thread about the tax bill or about the recent SCOTUS decision?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

20 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is this a thread about the tax bill or about the recent SCOTUS decision?

It's ok , all the winning has the MDL a bit confused 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

11 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Permitted for now NB, while it is still on appeal in the lower courts. They did not rule on the merits or legality of it, mainly because they already had admonished the administration earlier, which resulted in ban 3.0 where they were apt to be more comfortable on the limits. Check out Somin's take on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/12/04/supreme-court-lifts-temporary-injunction-blocking-trumps-travel-ban-3-0 

Wait, weren't you one of the ones on here happy that the 9th Circuit court out of Hawaii shut it down before????? So this being implemented is a great thing and I expect it to fully pass when it comes to a full hearing.