User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Trump's Travel Ban

  1. #1
    Senior Member DougRich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Given
    86
    Thanked 405 Times in 238 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Trump's Travel Ban

    "Original intent" is an established legal theory that maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his high court colleagues decided that the application of this standard should only be made when it doesn't conflict with their ideological support for Donald Trump.

    donald-trump.jpg

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DougRich For This Useful Post:

    Average Red Panda (06-27-2018), Dr. Who (06-26-2018), spunkloaf (06-26-2018)

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    151
    Thanks Given
    125
    Thanked 72 Times in 59 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's disgusting.

    It wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't about religious favoritism and oppression. Trump has talked about "banning Muslims" since the very beginning. Why suddenly now is anybody, especially the SCOTUS, willing to turn a blind eye to that?

    This has nothing to do with making America safer. This is about religion, and it should not be.
    Let the yoke fall from our shoulders
    Don't carry it all, don't carry it all
    We are all our hands in holders
    Beneath this bold and brilliant sun
    And this I swear to all
    -The Decemberists

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to spunkloaf For This Useful Post:

    Dr. Who (06-26-2018)

  5. #3
    Administrator Dr. Who's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    857
    Thanks Given
    706
    Thanked 504 Times in 379 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spunkloaf View Post
    It's disgusting.

    It wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't about religious favoritism and oppression. Trump has talked about "banning Muslims" since the very beginning. Why suddenly now is anybody, especially the SCOTUS, willing to turn a blind eye to that?

    This has nothing to do with making America safer. This is about religion, and it should not be.
    I'm not even sure it is directly about religion, but pandering to public hysteria based entirely on disinformation promulgated by right-wing tribalists.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” Mahatma Gandhi

  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    151
    Thanks Given
    125
    Thanked 72 Times in 59 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    I'm not even sure it is directly about religion, but pandering to public hysteria based entirely on disinformation promulgated by right-wing tribalists.
    That's absolutely correct. Trump doesn't give a shit about religion. He is using Evangelicals, making them think he is here to save us all from the evil Muslims, and they love him for it. It's a sham.
    Let the yoke fall from our shoulders
    Don't carry it all, don't carry it all
    We are all our hands in holders
    Beneath this bold and brilliant sun
    And this I swear to all
    -The Decemberists

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to spunkloaf For This Useful Post:

    Dr. Who (06-26-2018)

  8. #5
    Senior Member Crepitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Wichita ks
    Posts
    178
    Thanks Given
    135
    Thanked 143 Times in 94 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DougRich View Post
    "Original intent" is an established legal theory that maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his high court colleagues decided that the application of this standard should only be made when it doesn't conflict with their ideological support for Donald Trump.

    donald-trump.jpg
    The strange part is it is the opposite side of the argument they used to allow the baker to discriminate against gay people. They said that the CCRC showed hostility to the baker's religion by ordering him to anti-discrimination training.

    So intent matters in one but not the other?

    I call bullshit. This is judicial activism at it's worst.
    Retreating? Hell no, I'm just attacking in a different direction!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Crepitus For This Useful Post:

    Average Red Panda (06-27-2018)

  10. #6
    Senior Member Crepitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Wichita ks
    Posts
    178
    Thanks Given
    135
    Thanked 143 Times in 94 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spunkloaf View Post
    It's disgusting.

    It wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't about religious favoritism and oppression. Trump has talked about "banning Muslims" since the very beginning. Why suddenly now is anybody, especially the SCOTUS, willing to turn a blind eye to that?

    This has nothing to do with making America safer. This is about religion, and it should not be.
    Neil gorsuch.
    Retreating? Hell no, I'm just attacking in a different direction!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Crepitus For This Useful Post:

    Dr. Who (06-26-2018)

  12. #7
    Member Average Red Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Given
    100
    Thanked 52 Times in 33 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lots of people have been arguing about the 'constitutional merits' of this ruling. I think they might want to take a step back and recall that this same court also just recently upheld the right of for-profit institutions to deny service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation, along with a number of other "interesting" decisions that all but invariably favor the Republican Party's positions. The same court also voted the same day that church-established fake abortion clinics cannot be required by California state law to disclose the fact that they do not actually provide abortions despite falsely advertising that they do in order to trick women out of getting them. (For perspective, there are currently three times as many fake abortion providers in the United States as there are real ones remaining.) The U.S. Supreme Court is likewise expected to issue another pro-Trump/pro-Republican ruling today, for that matter, that will even further erode the right of workers to organize and maintain labor unions because why not, a whole 10-11% of American workers are still unionized and that's just way too extreme and pro-labor a situation to have.

    Besides the curiously one-sided recent history of U.S. Supreme Court rulings since the appointment of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, one may also consider the purported national security merits of this verdict. Namely, it may be worth pointing out that not a single one of these countries being targeted has yet produced a single terrorist attack on American shores. To me, this fact suggests facetiousness on the part of both the Trump Administration and the Supreme Court here. On the other hand, though, some of the countries on the list are currently overflowing with aspiring emigrants and refugees due to situations like civil war, drug-traffickers taking over major cities, etc. etc., so there are lots of survivors in need of asylum. Methinks that the current administration and their crony court simply don't want said situation to produce an expanded ethnic and religious diversification of this country, in truth.

    The motivations behind this policy strike me as similar to those behind such policies as the administration's concurrent, now-infamous "zero tolerance" border policy, the decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Accord on climate change and the UN Human Rights Council and the imposition of across-the-board tariffs. There is an isolationist tone and tenor to the Trump White House and to the attitudes of its various stooges that logically goes along with their authoritarian, elitist politics that consistently favor the interests of dominant social classes (business owners over workers and customers, men over women, straight people over gay people, citizens over immigrants and refugees, religious and ethnic majorities over religious and ethnic minorities, etc.).

    That's my opinion. There will be a nationwide demonstration this Saturday in protest of this and other "interesting" Supreme Court rulings of late and the administration's "zero tolerance" border policy. At minimum, hundreds of thousands are expected to attend. I will be there too.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Average Red Panda For This Useful Post:

    Dr. Who (06-27-2018)

  14. #8
    Administrator Dr. Who's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    857
    Thanks Given
    706
    Thanked 504 Times in 379 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Average Red Panda View Post
    Lots of people have been arguing about the 'constitutional merits' of this ruling. I think they might want to take a step back and recall that this same court also just recently upheld the right of for-profit institutions to deny service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation, along with a number of other "interesting" decisions that all but invariably favor the Republican Party's positions. The same court also voted the same day that church-established fake abortion clinics cannot be required by California state law to disclose the fact that they do not actually provide abortions despite falsely advertising that they do in order to trick women out of getting them. (For perspective, there are currently three times as many fake abortion providers in the United States as there are real ones remaining.) The U.S. Supreme Court is likewise expected to issue another pro-Trump/pro-Republican ruling today, for that matter, that will even further erode the right of workers to organize and maintain labor unions because why not, a whole 10-11% of American workers are still unionized and that's just way too extreme and pro-labor a situation to have.

    Besides the curiously one-sided recent history of U.S. Supreme Court rulings since the appointment of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, one may also consider the purported national security merits of this verdict. Namely, it may be worth pointing out that not a single one of these countries being targeted has yet produced a single terrorist attack on American shores. To me, this fact suggests facetiousness on the part of both the Trump Administration and the Supreme Court here. On the other hand, though, some of the countries on the list are currently overflowing with aspiring emigrants and refugees due to situations like civil war, drug-traffickers taking over major cities, etc. etc., so there are lots of survivors in need of asylum. Methinks that the current administration and their crony court simply don't want said situation to produce an expanded ethnic and religious diversification of this country, in truth.

    The motivations behind this policy strike me as similar to those behind such policies as the administration's concurrent, now-infamous "zero tolerance" border policy, the decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Accord on climate change and the UN Human Rights Council and the imposition of across-the-board tariffs. There is an isolationist tone and tenor to the Trump White House and to the attitudes of its various stooges that logically goes along with their authoritarian, elitist politics that consistently favor the interests of dominant social classes (business owners over workers and customers, men over women, straight people over gay people, citizens over immigrants and refugees, religious and ethnic majorities over religious and ethnic minorities, etc.).

    That's my opinion. There will be a nationwide demonstration this Saturday in protest of this and other "interesting" Supreme Court rulings of late and the administration's "zero tolerance" border policy. At minimum, hundreds of thousands are expected to attend. I will be there too.
    Good assessment. The Republicans are definitely the party of big business on the one hand and rural small town America on the other. The latter don't like change and in particular, social change.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” Mahatma Gandhi

  15. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    The depths of inner space
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Given
    10
    Thanked 37 Times in 25 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As I have heard used mostly in religious circles, it holds true. Text without context is a pretext.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •