4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban

[cye]

What did you think, because the ban is on hold, that they weren't going to make sure, to make sure, the ppl entering from those 6 countries aren't extremely vetted or something? Of course they are vetting who's coming in. That's just ridiculous.

Cmon your not that dumb. His argument was for a temporary ban to review vetting measures and institute extreme vetting. He announced today they are extreme vetting which obviates the need for any further ban.

Now I know your sunk costs intellectually and emotionally with this dope are huge so it's hard to give up, but do yourself a favour and move on to a worthwhile crusade.

 

[SuperCharge]

Cmon your not that dumb. His argument was for a temporary ban to review vetting measures and institute extreme vetting. He announced today they are extreme vetting which obviates the need for any further ban.

Now I know your sunk costs intellectually and emotionally with this dope are huge so it's hard to give up, but do yourself a favour and move on to a worthwhile crusade.

Call it whatever you want, us normal folks like to call it 'national security'.

 

[cye]

Call it whatever you want, us normal folks like to call it 'national security'.

Nice try Soup. You go from being a constitutional expert to an aw shucks every man. Words and their meanings matter in court which is why Trump being the self indulgent narcissistic twat that he is has fucked himself by refusing to shut his dumb mouth.

 

[SuperCharge]

Nice try Soup. You go from being a constitutional expert to an aw shucks every man. Words and their meanings matter in court which is why Trump being the self indulgent narcissistic twat that he is has fucked himself by refusing to shut his dumb mouth.

I don't know what the heck you are talking about. I've said the same thing from the beginning and will say it again for you.

CONGRESS HAS DULY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT PERMISSION TO MAKE DECISION BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY

You want to look behind the face of an EO and try and find intent, which the Supreme Court specifically says you cannot do, so when SCOTUS again has to say it, then maybe you will finally get it.

Listen to the lawyers actually arguing this case.

4th Circuit Oral Argument

 

[fuji]

Call it whatever you want, us normal folks like to call it 'national security'.

I call it racist, and a threat to national security.

 

[fuji]

I don't know what the heck you are talking about. I've said the same thing from the beginning and will say it again for you.

CONGRESS HAS DULY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT PERMISSION TO MAKE DECISION BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY

You want to look behind the face of an EO and try and find intent, which the Supreme Court specifically says you cannot do, so when SCOTUS again has to say it, then maybe you will finally get it.

Listen to the lawyers actually arguing this case.

4th Circuit Oral Argument

That's what it boils down to: is this a Muslim ban? If so Congress has not, and cannot, give that authority. It will come down to whether the court agrees with the circuit judges that it's a sham secular purpose, that the real purpose is to reduce Muslim immigration. Or whether they agree with you that it's actually not targeting muslims at all.

 

[SuperCharge]

i call it racist.

shocker!

 

[fuji]

shocker!

No it's not. Trump ran his whole Campaign on racist bullshit.

 

[SuperCharge]

No it's not. Trump ran his whole Campaign on racist bullshit.

Nope

 

[fuji]

Nope

Yup. Anti Mexican, anti Muslim. Remember how he campaigned on a Muslim ban and then said a judge was unfit​ because he was Mexican?

 

[cye]

I don't know what the heck you are talking about. I've said the same thing from the beginning and will say it again for you.

CONGRESS HAS DULY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT PERMISSION TO MAKE DECISION BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY

You want to look behind the face of an EO and try and find intent, which the Supreme Court specifically says you cannot do, so when SCOTUS again has to say it, then maybe you will finally get it.

Listen to the lawyers actually arguing this case.

4th Circuit Oral Argument

You are a true ideologue immune to all argument. Security can't be based on religion which the travel ban is. Even the government lawyers know Trump has beaten their case in court. This is about the calculated use of race, nothing else.
Forget the lawyers they are paid to flog this dead horse, start listening to the judges.

 

[Butler1000]

You are a true ideologue immune to all argument. Security can't be based on religion which the travel ban is. Even the government lawyers know Trump has beaten their case in court. This is about the calculated use of race, nothing else.
Forget the lawyers they are paid to flog this dead horse, start listening to the judges.

What race is Islam again......I thought it was a choice. Are you saying muslims have no choice but to be muslims?

 

[mandrill]

What race is Islam again......I thought it was a choice. Are you saying muslims have no choice but to be muslims?

Hahaha! Butler learns his script from Canada-man!

Butler - the guy who just strutted around posting about how many media sources he checks - is now using Canada-man's silly argument that you can't call a Muslim-hater a "racist" because Islam is a religion, not a race.

So here's the solution, Butler. Anytime you get annoyed that someone calls a Muslim-hater a "racist", just substitute the words "alt right neo nazi Muslim hater" and move on.

 

[Butler1000]

Hahaha! Butler learns his script from Canada-man!

Butler - the guy who just strutted around posting about how many media sources he checks - is now using Canada-man's silly argument that you can't call a Muslim-hater a "racist" because Islam is a religion, not a race.

So here's the solution, Butler. Anytime you get annoyed that someone calls a Muslim-hater a "racist", just substitute the words "alt right neo nazi Muslim hater" and move on.

Well how about the people who misuse the word racist stop throwing it around and diluting it's power and meaning. While there are many things I disagree with CM about the use of the word racist in description of criticism of Islam is wrong.

Religion is a choice. And I'm still waiting for you to call out people who have criticized Christianity as racist. Are ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood racist when they target Coptics? Never heard anyone say that either.

And considering Islam is far more atkin to fascism then my belief in democracy the label neo nazi is laughable. Not seeing many Islamic Liberal democracies out there right?

 

[cye]

Well how about the people who misuse the word racist stop throwing it around and diluting it's power and meaning. While there are many things I disagree with CM about the use of the word racist in description of criticism of Islam is wrong.

Religion is a choice. And I'm still waiting for you to call out people who have criticized Christianity as racist. Are ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood racist when they target Coptics? Never heard anyone say that either.

And considering Islam is far more atkin to fascism then my belief in democracy the label neo nazi is laughable. Not seeing many Islamic Liberal democracies out there right?

For this argument race is comprised of ethnicity which clearly is partly defined by religion. My point was the Muslim travel ban was never about security but the excitement of the worst racial biases of the Trump base. Religion may or may not be benign in its intentions towards others, but the intentions of its proponents shape the nature of its agency.

 

[Butler1000]

For this argument race is comprised of ethnicity which clearly is partly defined by religion. My point was the Muslim travel ban was never about security but the excitement of the worst racial biases of the Trump base. Religion may or may not be benign in its intentions towards others, but the intentions of its proponents shape the nature of its agency.

Thank you for a reasoned response.

But in looking at the nation's I think that is only part of the reason. Mainly it listed nations with a fair geographical area that really either had no central gov't that could even have a fair chance of ensuring the passports and visa vetting was correct.. or so hostile to the USA as to make the point moot.

And really some of the most populated Islamic nations were not on the list. And some islamic nations neighbouring those on the list were.

I have no doubt the rhetoric on the campaign trail led to the courts ruling and it was over the top and pandering at times. I won't try to split that hair.

But I do wonder whether the court was wrong because despite the rhetoric in action it was targeted correctly to nations where security of identifying passport holders is in question. And as well the interpretation of what power the presidency has to implement a travel ban.

Anyway off to the SCOTUS.

 

[Bud Plug]

Wait and see, Buddy. I've got more important things to do than explain shit to you.

I doubt it, and you're not.

 

[FAST]

I call it racist, and a threat to national security.

If Muslim/Islam is a race,...then the Muslim/Islamic terrorist's are obviously racists, waging a racist war,...which is a threat to national security.

So that would require a response in kind,...would it not,...ban the racist threat from its source,...???

Any war can be claimed to be a racist war,...so using race in any discussion about the current threat to national security in all western countries, is ridiculous at best.

 

[fuji]

What race is Islam again......I thought it was a choice. Are you saying muslims have no choice but to be muslims?

Hilarious, you can't aquit yourself of your reprehensible prejudices with this "Islam is not a race". You realize you're just punching yourself in the face?

 

[SuperCharge]

You are a true ideologue immune to all argument. Security can't be based on religion which the travel ban is. Even the government lawyers know Trump has beaten their case in court. This is about the calculated use of race, nothing else.
Forget the lawyers they are paid to flog this dead horse, start listening to the judges.

It's not based on religion. Show me where on the face of the EO that mentions religion once, then you may have a point.

I gave you the link to the whole 4th circuit court of appeal argument, I've listened to it in full about 3 times, it's 2 hours long, have you even listened to the arguments once? Or the questions from those Judges?! Yes you hear Judges too lol. Here is it again, I urge you to listen to it, at least once. LISTEN: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals hears case on travel ban

You want to hear from the judges, here you go! These are their statements AFTER this hearing.

Each of the three dissenting Judges filed separate dissenting opinions and joined in each others’. Judge Paul Niemeyer, relying on precedent that holds that the foreign affairs context in which the executive order operates is the apex of executive power, chatised the majority for its refusal to limit its inquiry to the text of the order itself:

"In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited."​