|
|
06-26-2017, 08:39 PM
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by _______
There is no reason for the administration to risk a loss in October. They will finish their review and declare victory before the case is ever heard in the fall. It will be moot by October. This is all you will ever hear from the SC on this matter.
On a separate issue, Kennedy did not announce his retirement. It's not impossible that he could still do so over the summer but it would be unusual for a Justice not to use the last day of the session to signal their intent to leave.
|
But that won't end it. Once they do get their vetting process in place, the left will sue because the new process is not fair or whatever.
Kennedy is still a topic for gossip. It is traditional for a Justice to hold a reunion of past law clerks every 5 years. Kennedy's next reunion was scheduled for June of 2018, but was moved up a year to this past weekend.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
06-26-2017, 08:52 PM
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
More like a 30 percent temporary win.
|
Depends on how you count. A 9-0 decision = 100% victory in my book and also tells me that it's highly unlikely they will change that decision. And the 9th Circus and the 4th Circuit should be hanging their heads in shame, since that kind of decision is tantamount to a judicial slap down of the nitwits on those circuits (most especially the 9th circuit). But of course, liberals have no shame, nor do they know when they should feel any. Completely dead from the neck up....
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
06-26-2017, 09:01 PM
|
#33
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Washoe County, Nevada
Posts: 2,253
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
But that won't end it. Once they do get their vetting process in place, the left will sue because the new process is not fair or whatever.
Kennedy is still a topic for gossip. It is traditional for a Justice to hold a reunion of past law clerks every 5 years. Kennedy's next reunion was scheduled for June of 2018, but was moved up a year to this past weekend.
|
Kennedy, at that reunion, made a number of forward looking comments regarding the next term. He also made a joke about having a HUGE announcement...that the bar would remain open past midnight.
He doesn't look to me like someone considering retirement.
|
|
|
06-26-2017, 09:05 PM
|
#34
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,453
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
The cake is pretty much baked on this one Mostie. Best to move on. The snowflakes lost.
|
Not only that, but come October, the Kangaroo Kourt will also decide what can be decorated on that cake!
Seems pretty clear that by allowing it to continue, they will not backtrack it later on. The whole issue might be moot by then.
But leave it too CNN, all they were focusing on today was that the court did not address his campaign statements and that would be the key later on.
BS - the court realized nothing but the order matters,and that nothing he said or says has ANY bearing on this at all.
Trump, like Dominos, he delivers.
Oh, btw it is NOT a travel ban.
Stop legitimizing the lying left by calling it that.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Last edited by Tom; 06-26-2017 at 09:07 PM.
|
|
|
06-26-2017, 09:57 PM
|
#35
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: near Philadelphia
Posts: 4,560
|
I think this Anthony Kennedy to retire story is a ruse. Why, who knows? Kennedy just might like the attention this is getting him and we all know that he does has the biggest and most misguided opinion of oneself in the entire Court -- aside from Elena Kagan, that is.
I do believe that if there's a Justice seriously considering retiring that one just might be the great Clarence Thomas, sad to say. I hope not but he did say early last year he might consider packing it in.
|
|
|
06-27-2017, 10:55 AM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Steny Hoyer, the #2 senile Dem in the House, says that the SCOTUS decision is a big victory for ISIS.
Quote:
“This ban places our country in serious danger and undermines the very foundations of our democracy," Hoyer said in a statement. "It hands a victory to ISIS and other terror groups by providing them with a potent tool for recruitment and radicalization."
|
Right. This is the final straw that will cause a lot of potential terrorists to put down their copy of the NY Times and pick up an AK-47 and a suicide bomb vest.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ctory-to-isis/
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
06-27-2017, 11:21 AM
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Steny Hoyer, the #2 senile Dem in the House, says that the SCOTUS decision is a big victory for ISIS.
Right. This is the final straw that will cause a lot of potential terrorists to put down their copy of the NY Times and pick up an AK-47 and a suicide bomb vest.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ctory-to-isis/
|
Someone should point out to this senile dimwit that appeasement hasn't been working out too swell in Germany, France and England.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
06-27-2017, 06:05 PM
|
#38
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,453
|
Quote:
“This ban places our country in serious danger and undermines the very foundations of our democracy," Hoyer said in a statement. "It hands a victory to ISIS and other terror groups by providing them with a potent tool for recruitment and radicalization."
|
If something as minor and temporary as that can radicalize them, then it just proves it is a great idea. Minds as weka as , as weak as democrat minds, need to be thoroughly vetted. Unlike the dems, we can do it to them. We have to live with the dems walking among us.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
06-27-2017, 07:15 PM
|
#39
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Washoe County, Nevada
Posts: 2,253
|
One last note on Kennedy...he has hired clerks for the forthcoming 2017-18 term. That pretty much nails shut any possibility he'll voluntarily retire before the end of that session.
Of note, he is telling those interviewing for clerk positions in the 2018-19 term that he is considering retirement (I wonder if that is where this rumor got started).
So, not this year but very possibly next year.
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 06:34 AM
|
#40
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by _______
One last note on Kennedy...he has hired clerks for the forthcoming 2017-18 term. That pretty much nails shut any possibility he'll voluntarily retire before the end of that session.
Of note, he is telling those interviewing for clerk positions in the 2018-19 term that he is considering retirement (I wonder if that is where this rumor got started).
So, not this year but very possibly next year.
|
No, the rumor started when he moved the occasional get together with former and current clerks up a year. That prompted some of his former clerks to suggest that maybe he wanted to do that prior to retiring.
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 12:03 PM
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
A 90 percent win for The Donald.
|
I would not put it that high.
First SCOTUS allowed the injunction to stand with regards to people with connections to the United States.
And that is the majority of people applying for visas.
The overreach by the 9th circuit was to include all people living in those countries.
If the 9th had only included those with connections with the United States.
The injunction would have been good to go.
The POTUS can exclude people with no connections to the United States from traveling to the United States. SCOTUS made that perfectly clear.
Allan
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 12:07 PM
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Depends on how you count. A 9-0 decision = 100% victory in my book and also tells me that it's highly unlikely they will change that decision. And the 9th Circus and the 4th Circuit should be hanging their heads in shame, since that kind of decision is tantamount to a judicial slap down of the nitwits on those circuits (most especially the 9th circuit). But of course, liberals have no shame, nor do they know when they should feel any. Completely dead from the neck up....
|
Was not 9-0. It was 6-3. With 3 dissents (gorsuch, Thomas and Alioto) who wanted the entire injunction overturned.
Allan
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 12:13 PM
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Oh, btw it is NOT a travel ban.
.
|
People from those 6 countries who have no connections to the United States are banned from traveling here.
What would you call it instead?
It is indeed a travel ban from those 6 counties the POTUS has designated.
Allan
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 12:46 PM
|
#44
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
People from those 6 countries who have no connections to the United States are banned from traveling here.
What would you call it instead?
It is indeed a travel ban from those 6 counties the POTUS has designated.
Allan
|
Since you're being extra picky, I believe Obama designated those six countries as needing more vetting. Trump just acted on the list Obama formulated. You can massage the Scotus decision all you'd like, the fact remains that Trump is largely free to define the gray area of what a "connection" is, and can institute extreme vetting procedures for at least six months before the SCOTUS gets around to deciding again. That sure sounds like a win to me.
|
|
|
06-28-2017, 01:45 PM
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
Since you're being extra picky, I believe Obama designated those six countries as needing more vetting. Trump just acted on the list Obama formulated. You can massage the Scotus decision all you'd like, the fact remains that Trump is largely free to define the gray area of what a "connection" is, and can institute extreme vetting procedures for at least six months before the SCOTUS gets around to deciding again. That sure sounds like a win to me.
|
Sorry if a person who has connections to the united states (a student who is attending a college here) is denied entry. Thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
If a person owning a business here in the US is denied entry, thats certainly a lawsuit.
If a person has family who are citizens here and denied entry, thats a lawsuit.
I dont think the POTUS would be well served by denying everyone who lives in those 6 countries a visa.
if there is a legit reason to travel here from the those 6 countries they should be allowed to travel to the US.
will be interesting to see how many lawsuits are filed by people who are denied entry.
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|