So when's the protest? Don't let me down now ya hear?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c45555d...-trump-to.html
So when's the protest? Don't let me down now ya hear?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c45555d...-trump-to.html
Last edited by steelhead; 09-13-2017 at 04:55 PM.
Sorry steelplatehead, but you've got your facts wrong:
So, the 9th Circuit decided on a undefined aspect of the SCOTUS interim ruling, which ultimately resulted in the high court clarifying their 6/26 decision pending arguments on the ban in October. So in all aspects of this article, lawfulness was applied to Trump's executive order.In an interim ruling on June 26, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration can implement most of the travel ban until the case is resolved, but that the administration must allow entry to those who have a "bonafide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.
The court, however, did not define the meaning of "bonafide relationship." In its Sept. 6 decision, a 9th Circuit panel said the description should include refugees who have assurances of resettlement support from nine religious and charitable organizations that work with the U.S. government.
That definition was deleted by Tuesday's Supreme Court order.
Seems the only b!tch-slapping going on around here is self-inflicted by you.
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 09-14-2017 at 04:05 PM.
Yeah sure thing you lack reading comprehension. The 9th circuit court tried to put an injunction on the Supreme Court 6/26 ruling by stating that there was ambiguity in the decision but they did not ask for clarification, they overstepped their jurisdiction. They were summarily ***** slapped and told that the original 6/26 ruling stood. So GTFOH with your lawfulness argument. Kinda like you referring to people hopping the border illegally undocumented immigrants or Mexican nationals. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.
In its Sept. 6 decision, a 9th Circuit panel said the description should include refugees who have assurances of resettlement support from nine religious and charitable organizations that work with the U.S. government.
That definition was deleted by Tuesday's Supreme Court order.
The definition was DELETED meaning your left wing nut job courts request to expand the original decision was swatted down like a pesky little mosquito. That's somehow a win huh?
The 9th made the ruling on the 7th, not the 6th. Forget your misinterpretations - you can't even get basic facts right.
With regard to these specific rulings, I have no problem with the actions taken by the 9th or SCOTUS. At issue here was your blatant misinterpretation of the facts.
As for my personal views on the matter: I am focused less on the interim rulings and more on the upcoming Oct. 10 arguments and subsequent decision by the high court.
Your parents have any children that lived?
- There are two injunctions, one issued in Honolulu (upheld by the 9th) and one from Maryland (upheld by the 4th). Both injunctions remain in effect.
- On 6/26 SCOTUS agreed to review both cases. Arguments are scheduled for October 10th. Both injunctions remain in effect.
- At the same time SCOTUS agreed to review the cases, they issued an interim ruling permitting partial implementation of the travel ban pending a final ruling by the high court. At issue was the the term "bonafide relationship", which was not defined by SCOTUS. The 9th rendered a ruling (NOT an injunction) defining the term, which was overruled yesterday by the high court. And once again, both injunctions remain in effect.
Once again, all lawful, all within the scope of all judges/courts/jurisdictions involved, and all accomplishing what was necessary, whether one agrees with the decisions or not.
Next time you accuse someone of lacking reading comprehension, you might want to brush up on your remedial English skills first.
Any other mouth-breathing idiots care to contribute?
Lipstick on a pig is still a pig
The 9th rendered a ruling (NOT an injunction) defining the term, which was overruled yesterday by the high court. And once again, both injunctions remain in effect.
9th Circuit tried to overstep their jurisdiction and was overruled. You stating that these courts are within the law is technically correct but their political bias rulings getting overturned at the highest percentage of any court is what I call a ***** slap!
Oh yeah, about that:
I see you're using your personal love life to make an analogy. Très classy.
Be that as it may, I am quite comfortable using the term "illegal alien", though "undocumented immigrant" and "Mexican national" are more-or-less accurate. What I find interesting is your "border hopper" reference, a derogatory term typically used by the lowest form of bigoted trash.
Wrong. They did not overstep their jurisdiction. Get a clue.
Either they overstepped, or were within the law. (Btw, it's the latter.)
Make up your mind already. Oh yeah, and get a clue.
The courts are biased, even SCOTUS. This is a concept fervently rejected (usually) in public, but it's true. If you think otherwise, then you haven't been paying attention to Supreme Court nominations/confirmations for the past 40 years.
And of course, since your initial "b!tch slap" description didn't hold up, you broadened it to include a wider range. And of course, you play up the percentages as some sort of vindication for your backward political views.
The hubris of the politically biased, crying outrage at the alleged political bias of others.