Why am I missing? He's not banned.

I think he's Implying I got 'rekt' because I couldn't be bothered to carry on the conversation.

I guess that's a no.

The entire travel ban legal argument boils down to two points: The judiciary being able to review Trump's intent based on campaign remarks (which is 100x stronger judicial review of intent ever allowed by any previous precedent, and explicitly forbidden by other precedent) and the judiciary usurping the power of executive to make national security determinations in the argument of whether the ban is effective or not (something the courts themselves have said they are neither constitutionally able to do nor do they have the capacity or resources to make such a determination anyway)

When you remove the argument of Trump's intent based on his previous remarks, then this legal challenge collapses because courts cannot overturn a law just for being 'not effective enough'. If "any other candidate" made such a law, this same argument either wouldn't work, or they'd have to admit they are giving the courts totally unlimited power to twist any words by a politician into a reason to knock down laws arbitrarily, which would be the total destruction of the separation of powers. The idea that "this only applies to Trump because of what he said" is the basic crux of the issue and if the lawyers can't even admit to the boundaries of their own arguments than it shows a legal disingenuity. How are they supposed to hammer out the fraught fine lines of legalese if they can't even admit to the foundation of their own argument?

First four posters on this thread will believe anything their party tells them.



Courts are the highest power in the land. Marbury v Madison pretty much states it. They get to review every law to see of it is constitutional. You can't create a bad bases on religion or race. Or nationality. A Muslim ban isn't constitutional, even if you promise to ban some of their neighbors with them.

I'm honestly surprised that so many of his supporters support this sort of authoritarianism. When Ron Paul was flavor of the month a couple years back they would be going ballistic.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 9 2017 05:05am

Their arguments would make much more sense if more Muslims were actually affected by this temporary travel ban. Out of the top 10 countries with the largest Muslim populations, only 1 country is included in the temporary ban. I just don't see how temporary banning 15% of the Muslim population(among others), especially when these were "countries of concern" regarding travel according to the Obama administration, can be considered a Muslim ban.

If it's a Muslim ban, it's an incredibly ineffective one.

This post was edited by IceMage on May 9 2017 05:14am

The courts are not the highest power in the land because there is no highest power in the land. We have a balance of powers, where the people, the executive, the senate, the congress, the states and the courts all hold powers.
When a court decides its going to usurp the power of the executive to make national security determinations and take a new role of thought police in which it will arbitrarily strike down any action of congress or the executive on the basis of the judge's declaration of the lawmaker's intent, it has created a new artificial power which completely upsets the balance of powers and *does* make the court that 'highest power in the land', effectively judge-kings. The constitution never granted the courts the ability to make or veto laws at their own discretion, but this precedent would give the latter: The ability to decide that any law can be struck down simply by claiming its author has a bias, regardless of the author's stated intent, regardless of the effect of the law.

Lets take this to its logical progression. Say a congressman runs a campaign during which he remarks he's going to ban crackwhores from welfare, and his opponents criticize it as sexist and racist. When sitting in congress, he passes a bill which puts more stringent drug testing on welfare recipients and subsidizes state drug treatment programs for those who fail. Petitioners bring a legal suit claiming that while the text of the law is neutral, it constitutes an establishment clause violation under the Trump-muslim-ban precedent, because it can be tied into his much earlier campaign comments and would have a disproportionate effect on black women. With this precedent empowering them, the court knocks down the law. Next, a new president takes office and champions a bill to increase spending to police departments in underfunded neighborhoods and ramp up the war on drugs. Looking at comments this president made 30 years in the past in which she called blacks 'superpredators' who needed to be 'brought to heel', petitioners file suit saying its motivated by her latent white privilege and historical animosity towards black people. The judges, frolicking mad with the power to arbitrarily determine what a lawmaker is thinking at any given time now ban the law. Next up, a thousand different judges foaming at the mouth with a thousand different agendas bring the government to a screeching halt as they can knock down any and every law but have no orderly capacity to reach consensus decisions or set coherent policy like the founding fathers intended. And as we're eating our dead in the streets and militias and rape gangs fight for control of the shattered post-apocalyptic burned out morass of a country in unreasonably pimped out monster trucks, we'll all remember fondly how well paved the road was with good intentions.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 9 2017 05:35am

Vincenzo might be the laziest poster in the sub, thankfully he doesn't come around much.

It's a law of the d2jsp universe that moderators are comically incompetent and trusted users are idiots.