After all that obstruction...

S

Starman

New Member
Bird Dog said:
Thats all they they needed to do.....
Click to expand...

Well no.

They still need to hear the case, which will happen this Wednesday from what I gather.

Today's action simply stated that the ban could remain in effect instead of blocked via that injunction while the litigation carries out. It's a fairly standard procedure and offers nothing foreshadowing what SCOUTS thinks about the eventual constitutionality of the matter.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Starman said:
This isn't a ruling. They have stayed the injunction of the lower courts, but have not ruled on the merits.

Here are the documents:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr1_j4ek.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf
Click to expand...

That's because there are still courts taking the cases. The end result is virtually the same, that the ban can proceed, in full, until these other cases are decided on. From Vrai's article:

"But the action indicates that the high court might eventually approve the latest version of the ban, announced by President Donald Trump in September."
 
S

Starman

New Member
PsyOps said:
That's because there are still courts taking the cases. The end result is virtually the same, that the ban can proceed, in full, until these other cases are decided on. From Vrai's article:

"But the action indicates that the high court might eventually approve the latest version of the ban, announced by President Donald Trump in September."
Click to expand...

Sure they might. And they might not too.
 
Bird Dog

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Starman said:
Well no.

They still need to hear the case, which will happen this Wednesday from what I gather.

Today's action simply stated that the ban could remain in effect instead of blocked via that injunction while the litigation carries out. It's a fairly standard procedure and offers nothing foreshadowing what SCOUTS thinks about the eventual constitutionality of the matter.
Click to expand...

Again....I know your slow...that’s all they needed to do,,,,,,,

...and then..... who knows
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
It sounds like the ban will be fine.
The fact that only one senile old woman and one liberal lesbian are the only two who objected is gratifying.
 
T

transporter

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
I am getting so tired of winning, aren't you?
Click to expand...

So just to recap the "winning"...when the 1st ban was announced their was a groundswell of protests...here, abroad, just about everywhere except the circle jerk echo chamber of the Trump cultists. EVERYONE except the cultists could see the 1st ban went against EVERYTHING this country stood for. AGs across the country sued and stopped the ban.

Trump is his consistently belligerent and mentally unstable way...threatened to sue everyone and go to the Supreme Court. He failed to do so.

The second attempt at the ban wasn't much better and had the same result.

We are now on the third version, almost 11 months into this travesty of an administration. The Supreme Court stayed the decision of the lower courts. The legal challenges are STILL working their way through the lower courts. The ultimate outcome is not known, but it may be a reasonable conclusion that this version of the ban may be upheld. The article says the Supreme Court would like to make a ruling by the end of its term (next June).

So...a ban that was only supposed to last for 90 days (a period of time the ended some 8 months ago)...a ban that was only supposed to be put in place in order to give this incompetent, dundering administration time to develop its "extreme vetting" process likely won't be finally approved by the Supreme Court until 18 months after the supposedly vital national interest threat it was supposed to address. BTW...whatever happened to that new vetting process??? I guess it is hard to get much done when you are consumed with toilet tweeting about NFL players and marketing your golf courses.

What you call winning, intelligent folks would call outright incompetence.
 
Bird Dog

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
transporter said:
So just to recap the "winning"...when the 1st ban was announced their was a groundswell of protests...here, abroad, just about everywhere except the circle jerk echo chamber of the Trump cultists. EVERYONE except the cultists could see the 1st ban went against EVERYTHING this country stood for. AGs across the country sued and stopped the ban.

Trump is his consistently belligerent and mentally unstable way...threatened to sue everyone and go to the Supreme Court. He failed to do so.

The second attempt at the ban wasn't much better and had the same result.

We are now on the third version, almost 11 months into this travesty of an administration. The Supreme Court stayed the decision of the lower courts. The legal challenges are STILL working their way through the lower courts. The ultimate outcome is not known, but it may be a reasonable conclusion that this version of the ban may be upheld. The article says the Supreme Court would like to make a ruling by the end of its term (next June).

So...a ban that was only supposed to last for 90 days (a period of time the ended some 8 months ago)...a ban that was only supposed to be put in place in order to give this incompetent, dundering administration time to develop its "extreme vetting" process likely won't be finally approved by the Supreme Court until 18 months after the supposedly vital national interest threat it was supposed to address. BTW...whatever happened to that new vetting process??? I guess it is hard to get much done when you are consumed with toilet tweeting about NFL players and marketing your golf courses.

What you call winning, intelligent folks would call outright incompetence.
Click to expand...
What are you doing Wednesday..,,,???
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
transporter said:
So just to recap the "winning"...when the 1st ban was announced their was a groundswell of protests...here, abroad, just about everywhere except the circle jerk echo chamber of the Trump cultists. EVERYONE except the cultists could see the 1st ban went against EVERYTHING this country stood for. AGs across the country sued and stopped the ban.

Trump is his consistently belligerent and mentally unstable way...threatened to sue everyone and go to the Supreme Court. He failed to do so.

The second attempt at the ban wasn't much better and had the same result.

We are now on the third version, almost 11 months into this travesty of an administration. The Supreme Court stayed the decision of the lower courts. The legal challenges are STILL working their way through the lower courts. The ultimate outcome is not known, but it may be a reasonable conclusion that this version of the ban may be upheld. The article says the Supreme Court would like to make a ruling by the end of its term (next June).

So...a ban that was only supposed to last for 90 days (a period of time the ended some 8 months ago)...a ban that was only supposed to be put in place in order to give this incompetent, dundering administration time to develop its "extreme vetting" process likely won't be finally approved by the Supreme Court until 18 months after the supposedly vital national interest threat it was supposed to address. BTW...whatever happened to that new vetting process??? I guess it is hard to get much done when you are consumed with toilet tweeting about NFL players and marketing your golf courses.

What you call winning, intelligent folks would call outright incompetence.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right. The incompetence of the Judges who ruled against the ban.
There had been bans placed by Presidents before but nothing was said against them.

But: Donald trump was facing a lot of Obama holdover judges who didn't know sh1t from shinola.
Their decision will be over ruled by the higher courts who are not Obama lovers.
So you toilet post on SOMD but you don't think Trump should toilet tweet.

If a bung hole could type ,I would swear yours does you posting for you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top