EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7941
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote: Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: I always felt that the 90 day period was a way to fulfill the pledge for the travel ban, while avoiding the pesky problem that it would be appealed to the highest court. | ||
KwarK
United States43752 Posts
It seems odd for them to get specific about not using taxpayer funds when the insurance premiums are presumably taxpayer funded. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2017 23:57 KwarK wrote: It seems odd for them to get specific about not using taxpayer funds when the insurance premiums are presumably taxpayer funded. Kinda makes sense if the police department wants to avoid angering the local tax payers any more than they already are. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote: Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler + Also: Lutheran preschools wins religious liberty case on public funding Wedding cake designers get writ of cert | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote: Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/879349760498565120 One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/879347347762884608 Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote: Lutheran preschools wins religious liberty case on public funding Funds are limited to building playgrounds at this time. The ruling had a footnote that stated funds could not go to other aspects of the school. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote: I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote: It vastly depends on many people would be prevented from traveling to the US because they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. My bet would be that is a very small number of people coming to the US from those countries. Yeah, the travel ban is largely reinstated. And the Supreme Court isn't uninformed about the way some groups operate. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 26 2017 12:55 KwarK wrote: I'm honestly unsure if this is a cynical barb about how Republican school choice policies have systematically denied a generation of Americans a decent education (creating their own future voters) or if you don't know that "school choice" typically results in the privatization of education, areas left without good schools and teachers, and tax dollars flowing to corporations through a voucher system. It's a cynical barb option select. Democrats -> Cynical barb about Republican failures Republican -> Cynical barb about ideological bias in public schools Libertarian -> Cynical barb about public school failures Of the points you raised, "areas left without good schools and teachers" should be the starting point of an actual discussion if you wish to have it. The "systematically denied" claim seems to be a gross exaggeration at best, and the other two are simply stating, in a value-neutral way, what school choice is. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote: Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2017 00:36 Danglars wrote: Yeah, the travel ban is largely reinstated. And the Supreme Court isn't uninformed about the way some groups operate. https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/879358421920870402 You could view the ruling that way. Considering the thing was stopped by every court in the courts, any ruling in the ban’s favor would be a win at this point. I’ll hold off judgment until we have real numbers on who it will impact. We already make it really hard to come to the US without a reason or point of contact here. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
The ban on students, visa holders, green card holders, employees from those nations etc. was pretty far overboard. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43752 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Not that the whole thing ever had anything to do with actual national security anyways; that was only a pretext for bigotry-based politicking, as we all know. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Edit: Hell, you could probably just register for an international conference or convention in the U.S. as long as you think of a sufficient backstory. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2017 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: I will say it's interesting that the partial injunction is totally unlikely to actually stop dedicated terrorists from entering the country. They can easily go through the prepwork of having their connections get them a job. Or just finding a family relation. Then again everyone seems to think terrorists are dumb as brick walls. i'd say that issue is moot, since no actual terrorists are coming from those places anyways; and the existing vetting systems were already extreme. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
| ||
