>The lower courts, in all their emphasis upon and research into context, once they’ve thrown off Mandel, have created a rhetorical mirage—the encapsulation of a desired context that can only exist if the context of that context (which few are able to see once encapsulated within the first layer of context) is erased. That outer context is POLITICS, and the court is loathe to wade into that world because they would quickly discover that in that world things rarely mean what they may seem to mean. But it is only within this outer context of politics, which would seem to be the necessary context in which to assess the meaning of statements made by candidates in a political context, that political statements can be properly understood.
>In inappropriately sensationalistic and self-righteous tones, some leaping on the back of Jonathan Swift, who would have scoffed at their ignorance, the lower courts have issued embarrassingly legally flawed and ill-considered rulings. The rulings align with each other in their refusal to analyze the President’s statements within the context of a political race, where candidates are not engaged in confessing their “dripping animus” against religious groups but are instead capitalizing, for instance, on opportunities to “talk tough” on terrorism. Ignoring politics, the court cannot reason sensibly whether it is more likely Trump hates Muslims (and his “travel ban” is an expression of that hatred) or that his statements about Muslims and Islam are those of a candidate taking advantage of a political opportunity to talk and look tough about a problem that by design creates “terror” among the public. Politicians find fears, and they exploit them. That is a big part of the game, particularly in a presidential race, and in this context Islam is transformed from a religion into a sensitive political issue, much like illegal immigration, which Trump can take on and in doing so reinforce his image as the candidate who is not afraid to take on the difficult issues.
Alexander Edwards
>In the context of a political race Trump’s statements about Islam are most accurately understood as those of a candidate claiming political territory that his political opponent cannot touch. Any politician, when given the opportunity to “talk tough” and “promise tough” in a way their opponent cannot, regarding a universally accepted security threat, will do so, and therefore if Trump’s statements are to be scrutinized, they must be scrutinized within their proper context.
Jaxson Nguyen
>News of horrific terrorist attacks regularly occurring in Europe and here in the US, attacks which are reported to be carried out in the name of Allah, have led, rightly or wrongly, to a significant segment of the population making a connection between Islam and terrorism. They public might be wrong to draw such a connection, but the fact that they are drawing it is a political fact. And Trump, as any smart politician would, took advantage of that political fact.
Adrian Sanchez
>The common sense interpretation of his statements on Islam during the campaign and after are again that they are instances of a politician locating an ideological position that is popular yet controversial and adopting it in order to highlight his willingness to “talk tough” about an issue in a way the other politicians cannot, given their political constraints. In the context of Trump’s public campaign or post-campaign statements, Islam is most precisely understood not as a religion but as a component of a political issue that a candidate may or may not use as a tool to advance his chances of victory in a political race or success in a political endeavor.
Logan Wood
>To assume "animus" and prioritize context as the key to divining true intention, as the lower courts do, while ignoring the actual context in which Trump made his statements, is the very kind of blindness Mr. Swift had in mind. As the opinions issued by the lower courts show, judges are not, and should not pretend to be, experts in politics, and likewise are not, and have no business pretending to be, experts on matters of national security. It is for this reason courts have stayed away from such matters in the past and why this court must stay away now. The 4th and 9th circuits TRO’s are hereby overturned. Executive Order 2 in its entirety does not violate the establishment clause or any other provision of the Constitution.
So ordered.
Noah Cook
I'll play...who wrote the Opinion
Christian Harris
tl;dr?
Brayden Anderson
...
David Rogers
reminder to sage all posts without a source
sage
Landon Myers
Get fucked 9th Circuit.
Nolan Perez
They're being cucks.
Elijah Murphy
>The 4th and 9th circuits TRO’s are hereby overturned. Executive Order 2 in its entirety does not violate the establishment clause or any other provision of the Constitution.
Sorry cannot reveal my source but there's no 5-4 split I can tell you that. Say what you want, but the SCOTUS is nowhere near politicized enough to play along
Carter Sanders
>attacks which are reported to be carried out in the name of Allah, have led, rightly or wrongly, to a significant segment of the population making a connection between Islam and terrorism. They public might be wrong to draw such a connection, but the fact that they are drawing it is a political fact shut up bigot
Asher Jenkins
Lots of ammo being given to liberal press here, however.
"TRUMP TOOK ADVANTAGE OF ISLAM WHEN ATTEMPTING TO TALK TOUGH FOR "TERROR" MUSLIM BAN - SCOTUS"
Ethan Morris
When will this be revealed publicly?
Michael Peterson
fake news cuck
Justin Price
...
Julian Barnes
while you're here, your honor, would you mind ruling on a few quick things for Sup Forums?
Bentley Parker
Doesn't matter. Assuming this user isn't a larper, then all the media can do is kick and scream.
Jace Rodriguez
per curiam I wonder?
Wouldn't surprise me if the court wanted to avoid a named opinion at all.
Blake Cruz
Yeah faggot. Read this Drumpf has fucked up by exploiting the fear of islamic terrorism and conflating it with normal islam and muslims, who are peaceful.
Andrew Reed
>would you mind ruling on a few quick things for Sup Forums? on Sup Forums no one is subject to "rulings," or so I was given to understand
Nicholas Bailey
>with normal islam and muslims, who are peaceful.
Every single muslim is a terrorist and needs to be murdered on sight, including the ugly disgusting children they shit out on a daily basis
every
single
muslim
must
die
Liam Cruz
But the ruling is ordered. Trumps ban is constitutional
Henry Wood
Every single german is a nazi and needs to be murdered on sight, including the ugly disgusting children they shit out on a daily basis
every
single
german
must
die
Benjamin Cox
Welcome to the real country, m80. We operate 24/7
Easton White
>Every single german is a nazi
nah m8 they stopped doing that awhile ago.
Asher Smith
Is this fake news?
Nicholas Harris
Big if true
Xavier Rodriguez
Is this legit? Is it happening?
Noah Campbell
Thanks for posting Eric
Ayden Powell
You are purposley ignoring the most important part of this entire LARP, do you realize how pathetic you are?
Joseph Sullivan
What school did you go to?
I'm not FBI, so don't worry.
Leo Long
>No source Opinions discarded
saged
Jason Brown
Wow, these sentences. I think I got a brain boner.
They feel... aristocratic. Nice to see that the highest Western institutions are still civilized.
James Taylor
Bumping your sage you pathetic faggot
Aaron Lopez
holy shit why all that hostility against OP?
the shitskins are going wild since the flags were changed
this place is a mess now
Hunter Miller
That was an exhausting read. I could sure use a junket about now.
Hudson Jones
You sound like CNN
Easton Stewart
>animus
Jason Foster
One of the most elegantly well written "fuck you say some stupid shit cunt, fuck off"'s i have ever seen.
Adam Perez
>SCOTUS is nowhere near politicized enough SCOTUS is possibly the most heavily politicized branch of the US government.
Ryan Kelly
Nothing on Google remotely related to OP's post.
Brandon Evans
IF TRUE, Sup Forums GETS SCOTUS RULINGS FIRST. Sup Forums CONFIRMED CENTER OF THE WORLD
I'm betting Alito. But what if it was Thomas? Wouldn't that just blow everybody's fucking minds??? It'd be awesome and surprise the fuck out of even the latent racism of the liberals who assume Thomas is a token conservative house nigga. What if all the false accusations of sexual harrassment during his confirmation just broke him for decades and now he rears his lionheaded intellectual conservatism. Scalia was just being a bro and protecting Thomas from the limelight while he psychologically recuperated from the character assassination?
So the zionist jews on the court sided with Trump against Islamic terrorism?
Gavin James
Sounds reasonable. Why do the lower courts seem so eager to wade into politics? The leftists on the street are going to lose their shit. It's gonna be a hot summer boys.
Christian Martin
this was obviously written by a larping college student fuck off
Wyatt Reed
>>whether it is more likely Trump hates Muslims >>Trump hates Muslims >>Trump >>not 'President Trump' or 'the President'
yeah buddy, sure reads like something a court would write down.
how can you put that much time and effort in writting all of this concocted clusterfuck but still fuck up basic shit like this?
