SCOTUS upholds Trumps travel ban. WOW!!!!!!!

Winning!


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna873441

Surprise.

Surprise. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Suprised? Winning? You lost Nov 8/ 2016. You’ve been losing ever since. Get used to it. Now fetch Bfowler a drink.

Asswipe the loser, Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

HAHAHAHAHAHA

the SCOTUS ruling more than validates Trump's firing of that partisan self-righteous witch, sally yates

If a plot against the emperor fails, you better have a back up plan.

The Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Democrats just noticed a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's a Train.

If a plot against the emperor fails, you better have a back up plan.

The Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Democrats just noticed a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's a Train. Originally Posted by Jackie S

why are ppl in new York depressed?

cuz the light at the end of their tunnel is new jersey

the SCOTUS ruling more than validates Trump's firing of that partisan self-righteous witch, sally yates Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I guess Wiesman is still proud of her!!!!

How could any doofus think it is a good idea to let ANY state Attorney General in the US (in this case, Hawaii!) block the executive branch's authority to vet foreign travelers and protect all 50 United States?

Do we really want to let fucking judges second-guess and micro-manage our federal immigration and security professionals by saying which countries should or shouldn't be subject to stricter standards? (E.g., ok for Yemen, not for Sudan, etc.)

Of course not! That would be unworkable. SCOTUS ruled correctly.

The problem with the so-called travel ban wasn't anti-Muslim animus by its creators. It was anti-Trump animus and hysteria by its opponents!

And that Sonya Sotomayor bitch once again proves she is the exact opposite of a "wise Latina".

How could any doofus think it is a good idea to let ANY state Attorney General in the US (in this case, Hawaii!) block the executive branch's authority to vet foreign travelers and protect all 50 United States?

Do we really want to allow fucking judges to second-guess and micro-manage our federal immigration and security professionals by saying which countries should and shouldn't be subject to stricter standards?

Of course not! That would be unworkable. SCOTUS ruled correctly. And that Sonya Sotomayor bitch is the exact opposite of a "wise Latina". Originally Posted by lustylad

This is the biggest reason I voted for Trump. If we had a Liberal Supreme Court you could kiss the Constitution goodbye. Freedoms and liberties would be gone. Hopefully, he get at least one more appointment. That should take care of another generation.

This is the biggest reason I voted for Trump. If we had a Liberal Supreme Court you could kiss the Constitution goodbye. Freedoms and liberties would be gone. Hopefully, he get at least one more appointment. That should take care of another generation. Originally Posted by bambino

you are correct sir

just take the heller case for example

a 5-4 supreme court decision

a close one for constitutional rights

or the freedom of speech case just decided where adoption agency speech was to be forced by the state - a 5 -4 decision. with a swing of one liberal judge, the state can tell you what you must say

The idiot Sotomayor jumped off the deep end again in her dissent. She stupidly compared the process of carefully vetting immigrants from failed terror-ridden states with interning Japanese-Americans during WWII. The only thing she forgot to do was to compare Trump with Hitler!

Here is how Chief Justice John Roberts bitch-slapped the "unwise Latina" in his majority opinion:

"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."

The idiot Sotomayor jumped off the deep end again in her dissent. She stupidly compared the process of carefully vetting immigrants from failed terror-ridden states with interning Japanese-Americans during WWII. The only thing she forgot to do was to compare Trump with Hitler!

Here is how Chief Justice John Roberts bitch-slapped the "unwise Latina" in his majority opinion:

"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." Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeah, but she doesn’t care. It was an idiotic comparison and she knows it. Maybe she was drinking with Ginsberg.

The idiot Sotomayor jumped off the deep end again in her dissent. She stupidly compared the process of carefully vetting immigrants from failed terror-ridden states with interning Japanese-Americans during WWII. The only thing she forgot to do was to compare Trump with Hitler!

Here is how Chief Justice John Roberts bitch-slapped the "unwise Latina" in his majority opinion:

"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." Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeah, but she doesn’t care. It was an idiotic comparison and she knows it. Maybe she was drinking with Ginsberg.

Welcome to the new ECCIE.