Trump gets HUGE win from the Supreme Court, liberals are dumbstruck

[toms...@gmail.com]

Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in the law (Obama did the same thing, but in secret):

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:

>Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in the law (Obama did the same thing, but in secret):
>
>http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

Did you see the word "partly" in this report? What they allowed is
NOT what Trump wanted.

[Alan Baker]

The special snowflakes of the right are very selective in their reading
comprehension, aren't they?

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:25:20 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-06-26 10:14 AM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in the law (Obama did the same thing, but in secret):
>>>

>>> http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0LLdb04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

>>
>> Did you see the word "partly" in this report? What they allowed is
>> NOT what Trump wanted.
>>
>
>The special snowflakes of the right are very selective in their reading
>comprehension, aren't they?
>
>:-)

Trump wanted ALL muslims banned. The Supreme Court nixed banning
relatives of people from those six countries living in the U.S.

[Jack Blackie]

wrote in message
news:ca686bc7-74a3-4f68...@googlegroups.com...

>Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in the law (Obama
>did the same thing, but in secret):

>http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

Amusing how the two Shit Stains are denying reality And attempting to
rewrite the courts decision.

I'm wondering who is the catcher...

Booby K looks upon Shit Stain Baker as the son he never had. And Shit Stan
Baker loves the approval he gets from that dumb old fuck that IT never got
from IT'S daddi.

Love "michael".

:-)

[John B.]

They didn't issue a ruling, just lifted part of a stay. They will
hear oral arguments in the fall.

[-hh]

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:44:26 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:14:17 PM UTC-4, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in
> > >the law (Obama did the same thing, but in secret):

Not quite, and the outcome of Obama's suspension was that they
did put into effect new policies in a timely fashion. See next.

><http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a>
> >
> > Did you see the word "partly" in this report? What they allowed is
> > NOT what Trump wanted.
>
> They didn't issue a ruling, just lifted part of a stay. They will
> hear oral arguments in the fall.

As things stand now with Trump, his request was under the self-
claimed rationale of needing a 120 day suspension to research
and fix shortcomings ... but 120 days have already come & went.

Specifically, EO 13769 was published on 1 Feb 2017 (Day 32) and
today (26 June) is Day 177, which means the Administration has
already had 145 days while they claimed that they only needed 120.

Granted, things don't always run on time, so some extra amount
of time is fair & reasonable ... but if it comes October and
the Administration still has no plan, then their façade becomes
quite obvious and they should lose based on ... choose your
poison: either gross incompetence, or deliberately false pretenses.


-hh

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

They didn't issue a ruling, just lifted part of a stay. They will
hear oral arguments in the fall.

And the effect is the travel ban.
Victory for the American people.
Defeat for the idealistic.

[Alan Baker]

Except Trump himself outed the fact that the putative reason for the ban
(time to review the process) wasn't really the reason...

...but separating the timelines for the two aspects of the executive order.

[John B.]

Victory my ass. It will not make us one bit safer. No one from any of the
target countries has ever committed a terrorist attack in the US. It is
ridiculously simplistic to think that this ban will have any effect at all.
Trump is a moron.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

Actually the effect is good. Those with family here are allowed in.
As far as it being a victory for us, that's silly. Oh, what's wrong
with being idealistic? You should try it.

[toms...@gmail.com]

What part of the word "LOST" don't you understand?

[toms...@gmail.com]

You need to take a course in "reading comprehension" - Trump NEVER wanted a ban of ALL Muslims. In fact, MOST Muslims ARE NOT banned. AND, it is NOT a ban, it is a 90 day SUSPENSION.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Well, it CERTAINLY isn't going to make us more UNSAFE! You seem to want to drive by looking in the rear view mirror - don't drive around me!

[Alan Baker]

What part of a "stay" before the actual issue comes before the court do
you not get?

[Alan Baker]

Trump is on record as wanting a Muslim ban and asking how he could get
it without it being ruled unconstitutional.

[B...@onramp.net]

What part of the first sentence of the link don't you understand?

"The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump
administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take
effect"'

Look up the word "limited" dick head.

[B...@onramp.net]

Only a fucking idiot doesn't know that the original EO included ALL
Muslims.

[toms...@gmail.com]

ROFLMAO!!!!

Libtards LOST, repeat LOST!!!!!!

[toms...@gmail.com]

More FAKE news - most Muslim countries are UNAFFECTED by the suspension. Supreme Court VALIDED the ORIGINAL order, albeit with MINOR mods.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:28:21 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:48:40 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:17:55 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>> > - show quoted text -
>> > They didn't issue a ruling, just lifted part of a stay. They will
>> > hear oral arguments in the fall.
>> >
>> > And the effect is the travel ban.
>> > Victory for the American people.
>> > Defeat for the idealistic.
>>
>> Victory my ass. It will not make us one bit safer. No one from any of the
>> target countries has ever committed a terrorist attack in the US. It is
>> ridiculously simplistic to think that this ban will have any effect at all.
>> Trump is a moron.
>
>Well, it CERTAINLY isn't going to make us more UNSAFE!

Neither would dissolving the whole ban crap.

>You seem to want to drive by looking in the rear view mirror - don't drive around me!

Scared pussy.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey, libtard, you STILL don't understand what LOST means!!!!

[toms...@gmail.com]

You would do well to buy a thesaurus, your vocabulary seems severely limited.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

'“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly.
“So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me
up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it
legally.' "'

That's not an anonymous source. That's Giuliani speaking on the record.

There's a video here, so you won't need to sound out the big words:

<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani-after-trump-announced-muslim-ban-he-asked-me-for-right-way-to-do-it-legally/>

[Alan Baker]

You apparently don't understand what a legal "stay" is or that this one
only PARTLY restored Trump's executive order.

[B...@onramp.net]

You need to take a refresher course in comprehensive reading.

[B...@onramp.net]

One needs to talk down to the uneducated.

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>
>> You need to take a course in "reading comprehension" - Trump NEVER wanted a ban of ALL Muslims. In fact, MOST Muslims ARE NOT banned. AND, it is NOT a ban, it is a 90 day SUSPENSION.
>
> Only a fucking idiot doesn't know that the original EO included ALL
> Muslims.

Only a fucking idiot doesn't know it was the SAME seven countries in
Trumps EO as Obama's EO. So, NO, it was NOT a Muslim ban.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 9:48:43 AM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You need to take a course in "reading comprehension" - Trump
> >> NEVER wanted a ban of ALL Muslims. In fact, MOST Muslims ARE
> >> NOT banned. AND, it is NOT a ban, it is a 90 day SUSPENSION.

Except that the "90 day suspension" that Trump asked for...is over.

Specifically, the EO was published on Day 32 (1 Feb) and +90 days
later would be Day 122 (2 May) ... so "Time's Up!".

Furthermore, yesterday (26 June) was Day 177, which means that
Trump's already 8 week behind his own self-imposed schedule,
which also represents a +60% schedule overrun.

Now aren't "Great Businessmen!" supposed to know the basics of
Project Management - - eg, "Cost, SCHEDULE, Performance"?

So what's Trump's excuse for needing an extension?

> > Only a fucking idiot doesn't know that the original EO included
> > ALL Muslims.
>
> Only a fucking idiot doesn't know it was the SAME seven countries
> in Trumps EO as Obama's EO. So, NO, it was NOT a Muslim ban.

Try again, Mike.

Historically, Obama's EO did not call for a total ban on travel to
the USA from said countries as Trump's did.

Obama's EO was vastly narrower in scope in that it only suspended
the processing of refugee requests. That meant that everyone
arriving at the airports who weren't specifically requesting
permanent US residence as a formal refugee was allowed in.

FYI, Obama's EO was ultimately only temporary and the actions
taken also included re-vetting 58,000 Iraqi refugees who had
already settled in the USA.

In the meantime, the Trump Administration is still burning time
whining about not being allowed to ban Muslim refugees ... but
have been conspicuously silent in what their "90 Day" review of
current vetting procedures have found any actual deficiencies for
correction.

To that end, is there even any proof that they're actually doing
their self-imposed assignment to go look?

Don't think so ... and personally, I doubt it. Prove me wrong.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

Sorry Mike but that is exactly what Trump was seeking. He even asked
his staff to come up with legalities that effected such.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-27 5:51 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:23:32 -0700 .

>>>
>>> What part of the word "LOST" don't you understand?
>>
>> What part of the first sentence of the link don't you understand?
>>
>> "The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump
>> administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take
>> effect"'
>>
>> Look up the word "limited" dick head.
>>
>

> How about the 9-0 decision? That certainly proves the lower
> courts are not ruling based on the law or the facts.
>

Cite, please...

[Wiley Jack]

wrote in message news:h4g2lcli6tr5qdrf1...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:

>Really not very surprising - it is clearly spelled out in the law (Obama
>did the same thing, but in secret):
>

>http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

>Did you see the word "partly" in this report? What they allowed is
>NOT what Trump wanted.

You still shitting your pants and drooling, Shit Stan? I love that you are
miserable.

[John B.]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 9:48:43 AM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:

Obama did not issue an EO banning immigration from those countries.

[toms...@gmail.com]

You ment to say "MOSTLY". The order came out today permitting only IMMEDIATE family members. What are we talking about, anyhow? Tens, hundreds? Obama wanted to import HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

[toms...@gmail.com]

No, YOU need to. MOST Muslims in the world are unaffected (e.g. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, etc.).

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 7:15:03 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 9:48:43 AM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> > B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> You need to take a course in "reading comprehension" - Trump
> > >> NEVER wanted a ban of ALL Muslims. In fact, MOST Muslims ARE
> > >> NOT banned. AND, it is NOT a ban, it is a 90 day SUSPENSION.
>
> Except that the "90 day suspension" that Trump asked for...is over.
>
> Specifically, the EO was published on Day 32 (1 Feb) and +90 days
> later would be Day 122 (2 May) ... so "Time's Up!".
>
> Furthermore, yesterday (26 June) was Day 177, which means that
> Trump's already 8 week behind his own self-imposed schedule,
> which also represents a +60% schedule overrun.
>
> Now aren't "Great Businessmen!" supposed to know the basics of
> Project Management - - eg, "Cost, SCHEDULE, Performance"?
>
> So what's Trump's excuse for needing an extension?

Trump doesn't need an "excuse" - the President, and the President alone, decides if and when there needs to be an immigration suspension and for how long. In other words, he can extend for as long as he deems necessary. Go read the law - it is the law, don't you know? Probably not...

[Alan Baker]

"wanted to import"

Got a cite for that...

...because that seems like you're lying.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

What law would that be?

Provide a cite.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Try googling "immigration law trump."

[B...@onramp.net]

If you think an executive order is law then you've further proven
yourself to be clueless.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. YOU claimed it was a law: YOU provide the support.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:57:55 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

This pinhead is quickly approaching Plonk status.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

The RAT has baited the hook. Are you going to bite or swim on.

[toms...@gmail.com]

No, you are the clueless one - the law IS the law!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Nope, YOU are the lazy one - go find it.

[Alan Baker]

Executive orders aren't laws. Period.

If you have an actual law you can cite:

Quote the relevant portion.

Provide link where one can check what you've quoted.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

You're the one making a claim that such a law exists.

You're now claim it can be easily googled, but you're arguing rather
than just doing it.

I usually find that when people spend more effort on avoiding posting a
link they claim exists that simply posting it would have taken, they've
been caught just making something up.

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

Go do your own research - but you won't because you're TOO LAZY.

[toms...@gmail.com]

You're even more clueless - try looking up the law, if you know how.

[Alan Baker]

So you don't have a cite...

...I knew that.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Try presenting the law you claim exists...

[Fatboy Slim]

wrote in message
news:a512d4f4-b889-48ec...@googlegroups.com...

IT'S just an Asshole troll looking for attention to fill IT'S empty,
worthless life.

Wadda Dick.

[Fatboy Slim]

wrote in message news:vj9blct15bnrcpnik...@4ax.com...

You are almost as big a Dumb Fuck as Shit Stain Baker. You two are the
Biggest Assholes on the group. Shit Stain, the son you never had. And you
give him the approval his father never did.

Even his father knew what a Loser IT was.

[B...@onramp.net]

A law must be passed by Congress. An Executive Order doesn't have to.

[toms...@gmail.com]

So, you don't know how to look up the law? Pity...

[toms...@gmail.com]

The Law is publically available for all.

[Alan Baker]

No. I do know how to look up the law.

It's just not my claim to support.

The fact that you continue to be unable to provide a cite suggests
strongly that you have nothing.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Great.

You've claimed a law exists...

...so you show it!

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

From;

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/17/fall-2016/what-is-an-executive-order.html

"Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from
Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them".

[toms...@gmail.com]

Right after you provide the proof you promised that Trump lied.

[Alan Baker]

I will.

It starts with you answering my question, because it's a logical proof.

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

Next time try looking up the LAW that grants Trump the authority. It's not hard because the EO lists the law granting that authority in the FIRST SENTENCE!

[B...@onramp.net]

Whine and obfuscate all you want but a law may give the authority to
issue an EO but that doesn't make it a law. Dummy!!

[Alan Baker]

Hey here's a crazy idea:

You claim there's a law:

YOU show it.