Breaking: Supreme Court Permits Trump's Travel Ban

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One thing I know about them is that they are perfectly fine with activist judges as long as the ruling gives them their own political way, so there's no cause for you to complain here. Especially when what you're actually complaining about is judges not being activist and letting the president do what he has the constitutional authority to do. Don't like what Trump is doing here? Vote for someone else in 2020. As our last president rightly said, elections have consequences.
The projection in this post is strong.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,230
3,041
Kenmore, WA
✟278,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not the one whining because the courts didn't intervene to prevent the consequences of the last elections. Trump promised he'd do this during the campaign, he was elected by the American people with full understanding that he'd do it and now he's doing it. Wow! A political candidate who actually keeps promises!
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,712
14,593
Here
✟1,206,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump travel ban

I think this settles the issue once and for all.

Not in the way that Trump supporters seem to think it does...

This is the 2nd or 3rd thread I've seen today that seems to be implying that "Trump was right all along".

This wasn't his original travel ban, this was his latest version that went through several iterations that got struck down before he finally provided one that met constitutional and legal muster.

This in no way means his original one was "right"...it means precisely the opposite. He had to go through multiple rounds of changes to finally get it right.

It's amazing how people spin these things with creative wording to read what they want into it.


Joe: "I want to be able to punch people for using profanity in public"
Court: "You can't do that"
Joe: "I want to be able to punch people for using certain profanity"
Court: "You can't do that either"
Joe: "Fine, then I want to be able to punch people for using profanity in certain stores"
Court: "Still no good"
Joe: "Okay, fine, I want to make it so that a store owner can make a person leave for using profanity"
Court: "That one is okay"

Headline "Joe's anti-profanity law approved by courts"

Joe's Supporters: "YOU SEE!!! JOE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG YOU PROFANITY LOVERS!!!"
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
JlOv1uz.jpg
 
Upvote 0