Trump admin: It's NOT a travel ban reeeee

Trump admin: It's NOT a travel ban reeeee.

Trump today:Yup its a fucking travel
Ban.

We really to have iq tests before running for president.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1sC1dOiCSp0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Who is this we, nigger?

>Trinidad

shouldn't you worry about no water, no food and Boko Haram you starving nigger?

>we

>we

It's a vpn you German cuck. Don't you have ahmed's semen to swallow?

If blacks have no fathers then why is it TriniDAD and Tobago?

Checkmate atheists.

>Ugga Booga Meshugga BIX NOOD

sure proxy nigger
go back to your Mudhut

>Trump admin: It's NOT a travel ban reeeee.
?????
It has always been one. The distinction is it's not a muslim ban.

Why isn't the Jewstice Dept doing what the fucking president tells them to?

Go back to taking care of the baby Ahmed gave you. I heard you love watching.

>starving niggers gets uppity

See this part? This is the thing that matters.

By shifting responsibility to the Justice Dept, the ACLU can no longer use the "B-BUT TRUMP SAID" argument (which is their only argument).

This was planned. SCOTUS will easily rule in Trump's favor.

Trump is a dumbfuck. You know it, I know it, even his fanbois know it.

At this point, the only thing they can mumble is something about how at least he isn't Hillary.

This is you and your girl?

It probably is someone from Boko Haram
I mean, who else there could afford an internet?

>afford an internet

I'm convinced you're a poo in the loo.

>implying an IQ test would stop The Don

I've got news you won't like.

>Fuck what my lawyers say I want a ban
>EPIC 8D CHESS MOVE

I thought people liked Trump because he vomits whatever he's thinking

is there literally nothing you idiots won't applaud? His lawyers have been persuing a strategy of not calling it a ban and their client fucks them over on a national stage in highly quotable fashion

Sean Spicer basically gaslighted reporters about it being a ban.

Trinidad is basically poo in loo land. They then go to London.

If you've been following the case, you'd realize that Trump just knocked the ACLU's talking point out of their hands days before the final oral arguments are heard.

They have no chance.

Where did he say it was not a travel ban?

Do you want to try this post again?

i love when people say "we need iq tests"
i exposes the person that says this as a idiot that would need a iq test if they just were reliable and not bordering on pseudo science.

He knows he's going to win so he wants it to be as extreme as possible. It will be a big victory and give him more power. The SC is backed into a corner and must rule in his favor even though he's saying it's a travel ban.

>the ACLU can no longer use the "B-BUT TRUMP SAID" argument
...except it's all what he said. Saying someone else watered down his intent has literally zero legal bearing.

ACLU will continue slapping down this orange shitgibbon the way his wife slaps away his hand in public.

Again the ban does not result in a Muslim ban you have to find bearing in the language of the order that supports this and there is nonewe have been overt his.

Intent is irrelevant. He can ban anyone for any reason.

who cares what kind of ban it is. he has full authority to halt all immigration for any reason.

The fact that it even has to go to the SCOTUS is ridiculous. Judges have no say at all regarding this, the power is clearly reserved for the President and not an unelected oligarchy.

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Show me the part where "intent" nullifies this authority.

Nope.

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Law is hard, guys.

That's nice, but you realize that the president has this power literally spelled out for him.

Again it has always been a travel ban. The left was trumpeting that it was a muslim ban, which, unfortunately was a lie.

A muslim ban is the only correct option.

Shareblue
CTR shill forget to change their proxy.

And yet the courts keep slapping down the ban while all he can do is whine for people to let him do what he wants.

...

It was always a travel ban, retard

Until SCOTUS rules on it. Then it's game over for you, you butthurt commie faggot.

Let me post the statue again since you CANNOT refute it:
>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The argument was whether or not it was a muslim ban, not a if it was a travel ban

Lower courts don't matter, the letter of the law is clear.

you seem to not understand that the courts don't make the law

"trump has a low IQ" says the fag who probably denies the validity of IQ whenever it doesn't fit his faggy narrative.

Exactly.

I never understood what the big deal is with travel bans. So what? Why is everyone entitled to travel wherever they want?

Leftists unironically believe that the US should have open borders.

rogue courts using their power to push the "resistance"

They said it wasn't a Muslim ban, you fucking retard

This. OP is a dumb nigger.

>you butthurt commie faggot
Wew kid, calm down.
I'm not the original user or a marxist liberal agent out to get you, just pointing out the reality of what keeps happening.

>Let me post the statue again since you CANNOT refute it
Again, calm down, and maybe work on your reading comprehension because you missed my point.
It doesn't matter whatever you can copy and paste here, it matters how the court votes.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the right but that it doesn't matter as long as the courts restrict it.

See above.
How the court rules matters more in the real world than the letter of the law.

And you don't seem to understand that in real life people don't always play by the rules. Legislating from the bench isn't just a warning about some theoretical imaginary threat, it happens.

>statue
It's statute you dumb fuck.

You don't understand the role of SCOTUS it seems.

I think you are mixing the words. It is a travel ban, it is not a Muslim ban

It's a typo, you dumb fuck. Also get the fuck out of this thread you Muslim worshiping cocksucker.

The lower courts decision is in conflict with the letter of the law and 240 years of precedent. The SCOTUS will uphold the ban guaranteed.

And again, you don't seem to understand how the real world works. Even autists should be able to understand this by being vaguely aware of some history.

People have been trying to overturn shit like roe v wade as overreach legislating from the bench ever since the ruling.

And to your post:
youtube.com/watch?v=1sC1dOiCSp0

The 9th Circuit won't be able to dick with the EO after the SCOTUS ruling. Not sure where you get this idea that the lower courts can override SCOTUS.

Wow, what a shocker, you're a leftist. Now leave.

Well that's a very nice and even reasonable/logical hope but sorry if I don't take your guarantee as gold.
All sorts of crazy shit can happen and I never underestimate the ability of government to fuck up.

That's all you got?

>Law is hard, guys.

The fact that you think "Law" is just reading a statute and going "yep," show you don't know anything at all about law. There is such a thing as judicial gloss, and almost every statute has to be refined by courts of law.

Take a look, you goddamn chump:

>If we were to disagree with the district court that § 1152(a)(1)(A) partially restrains the President's authority under § 1182(f) and § 1185(a)(1), then we would be obliged to consider Plaintiffs' alternative Establishment Clause claim. And, importantly, even if we were to agree with the district court's statutory analysis, we still would be faced with the question of whether the scope of the preliminary injunction, which goes beyond the issuance of immigrant visas governed by § 1152(a)(1)(A) to enjoin Section 2(c) in its entirety, can be sustained on the basis of Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim.

>In light of this posture, we need not address the merits of the district court's statutory ruling. We recognize, of course, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which counsels against the issuance of "unnecessary constitutional rulings." Am. Foreign Serv. Ass'n v. Garfinkel, 490 U.S. 153, 161, 109 S. Ct. 1693, 104 L. Ed. 2d 139 (1989) (per curiam). But as we have explained, the district court's constitutional ruling was necessary to its decision, and review of that ruling is necessary to ours. Accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of Plaintiffs' claim under § 1152(a)(1)(A). The breadth of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court may be justified if and only if Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction based on their Establishment Clause claim.

Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 17-1351, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9109, at *43 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017).

>Not sure where you get this idea that the lower courts can override SCOTUS.
Not sure where you got the idea I thought that.
Strawman or your failure of reading comprehension, take your pick.

Again there is no satisfying the requirements as the bill ,its result and most importunity no language in it targets Muslims.

Nigga read the statute yourself. It literally says the president can ban anyone for any reason. And if you pick up a history book, presidents have done exactly that for 240 years. You banned the germans in both world wars, banned the japs in ww2, banned communists during the Cold War, banned the Chinese because you hated the Chinese, etc. All of that shit was upheld by the SCOTUS. The law doesn't magically change just because the president is orange.

The ACLU has only been allowed to go this far because they had these cases in courts that were overwhelmingly stacked with liberal judges. It's called judicial activism.

That's your entire argument. Now fuck off retard.

>Just ignore all statutes and laws because drumpf is a meanie!
Cute, too bad it won't work in a real court. You are going to get schooled in SCOTUS, kiddo.

>are you muslim?
>no
wow great ban moron

You should actually just read the Court of Appeals decision, but you probably wouldn't be able to understand it even if you had access to it.

Google "Establishment Clause" and also "Mandel's 'bona fide' test." And stop posting absolutely stupid shit you know nothing about.

Explain to me again how the establishment claus or bona fida does anything to dispell what I said if anything bona fida supports what im saying you have to show real effect based on your complaint.

lol your done cunt i cant wait for the triggering.

Drop the act already. You know you have no argument.
see
Look VERY hard at that image.

The language I have quoted above already demonstrates that, here

It's not a muslim ban. It's a ban on giving entry visas to people from specific countries. I wish it was a muslim ban though. Simply ban all travel from all muslim countries.

>injunction issued by the district court may be justified if and only if Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction based on their Establishment Clause claim

did you read what the fuck you wrote?

You keep making the religious discrimination argument as if that's relevant.

There are no religious qualifiers in the EO. You are making shit up.

nigger work on your reading comprehension because we're just talking past eachother

>The law doesn't magically change just because the president is orange
It can change for all practical purposes if retarded judges change the interpretation.
I'm not saying it's right but it's reality, it happens.

"we really to"
Can't even form a proper sentence and you want IQ tests for the president. Maybe Sup Forums should issue IQ tests for its users.

You'd totally pass, right?

>its a vpn

In that case, reported

Now fuck off cuck

He is right though, how many more innocent people are going to die before people do something about this violence? Eventually people will take matters into their own hands and outright just start lynching Muslims in retribution; it wouldn't matter if they were siding with ISIL or not.

Because muh democracy

Wtf rare

>support a retard

>gets surprise when drumpf does retarded thinks

all you poltard drumpfkins deserve the rope

>did you read what the fuck you wrote?

I did, but I also read the whole opinion, so it's not quite a mystery to me as it is to you. Some more is below, because

this retard, like you, hasn't a clue. The ENTIRE CASE hinges upon The Establishment Clause and Mendel's "bona fide" test, which Trump's loud mouth fails:

>We start with Mandel's requirement that the challenged government action be "facially legitimate." EO-2's stated purpose is "to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States." EO-2, Preamble. We find that this stated national security interest is, on its face, a valid reason for Section 2(c)'s suspension of entry. EO-2 therefore satisfies Mandel's first requirement. Absent allegations of bad faith, our analysis would end here in favor of the Government. But in this case, Plaintiffs have alleged that EO-2's stated purpose was given in bad faith. We therefore must consider whether they have made the requisite showing of bad faith.

>As noted, Plaintiffs must "plausibly allege[] with sufficient particularity" that the reason for the government action was provided in bad faith. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). Plaintiffs here claim that EO-2 invokes national security in bad faith, as a pretext for what really is an anti-Muslim religious purpose.

Hate to break it to you dude but all races and ethnicities find the The white and Asian race the most attractive! Except for the bitter ugly fat black women they like they're black guys. Evidently the least preferred race is the black race, ugliest

>Plaintiffs point to ample evidence that national security is not the true reason for EO-2, including, among other things, then-candidate Trump's numerous campaign statements expressing animus towards the Islamic faith; his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this ban by targeting "territories" instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1, which targeted certain majority-Muslim nations and included a preference for religious minorities; an advisor's statement that the President had asked him to find a way to ban Muslims in a legal way; and the issuance of EO-2, which resembles EO-1 and which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same policy goals as EO-1. See, e.g., J.A. 339, 346, 370, 379, 403, 470, 472, 480, 481, 506, 508, 516-18, 522, 798.

>Plaintiffs also point to the comparably weak evidence that EO-2 is meant to address national security interests, including the exclusion of national security agencies from the decisionmaking process, the post hoc nature of the national security rationale, and evidence from DHS that EO-2 would not operate to diminish the threat of potential terrorist activity.

>Based on this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2's stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. And having concluded that the "facially legitimate" reason proffered by the government is not "bona fide," we no longer defer to that reason and instead may "look behind" EO-2. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).

nowhere in the constitution does it protect a muslim's right to travel

>It's called judicial activism
Yeah, that's what I've been talking about this whole time with legislating from the bench, you retard.
Hopefully they'll shut down all the bullshit and sort it out for good but it's not a sure thing till it's done no matter how much you hope and pray and plead that it has to happen.

Never underestimate their ability to fuck stuff up

>That's your entire argument
>you HAVE to be arguing this strawman because I'm too stupid to follow what you're saying
no user, you are the retard

>wrongthink overrides authority

Nice argument roflmao, stick to Judge Judy kiddo

Pretty sure missionary work is covered under free exercise of religion

SCOTUS will rule the same. Trump does not pass the "bona fide" or "good faith" requirement.

Welcome to the real world. Yeah "law is hard," so I'm glad I could help you out with it.

SCOTUS will not make such a retarded decision, by playing mindgames with the President's authority you are putting the nation at risk.

What if we went to war with one of those countries, banned their soldiers from traveling to the US only to have it blocked because of your bullshit precedent? Judges do not get to make such calls on national security.

American lives > Feefees of foreigners

No one cares about your fee-fees. This is law. Stick to judge Judy kiddo.

>orange shitgibbon
kek imagine how much of a cunt you'd have to be to write that on the internet

Establishment clause argument is bogus for several reasons. Chief among them that immigration is a privilege and can be denied for any reason including religion. Secondly Trump is banning muslims not on religious grounds but on national security grounds. They're a religious group that is more likely to bomb us, it is therefore reasonable to discriminate.

You sound like aa cartoon

"Only an idiot would punch a man with glasses" then gets punched in the face

The politicians, the media, the lawyers, the judges they are all against you. You think pointing out their hypocrisy will mean "Oh shit, you are right, you found my one weakness" and melt into water? They know well they are lying scumbags, they are marxists

/thread

it's (((we)))

Intent does not override authority. Have fun committing suicide when SCOTUS rules 8-0 in Trump's favor, you ACLU shitskin.

>I am going to post the argument by the lower court that is going to the supreme court that is going to be BTFO

lol BONA FIDA would require that they prove this is a MUSLIM ban using the language of the law. Unless you can prove that this is why the shit your posting will be thrown out

lrn to argue

>It's NOT a travel ban reeeee.
That never happened though. They specifically said IT WAS A TRAVEL BAN. You seem like a moron.

>What if we went to war with one of those countries, banned their soldiers from traveling to the US only to have it blocked
Ok at this point you're just being as much of a fear-mongering retard as the leftists.
When you make stupid arguments like this it does more harm than good like liberals crying that trump is hitler every time he sneezes.

He's just confused, he doesn't know the EO at SCOTUS doesn't even have that religious language he's talking about.