We're so f*cked

[cool_chick]

Same old idiots acting like they're experts remain here, I see...^^

[Spider]

[cool_chick]

[Spider]

[ToddStarnes]

lol outstanding. so trump breaks a campaign promise by removing language favoring other religions besides Islam, breaks another campaign promise by removing the bar on refugees, and breaks another campaign promise by not banning all Muslims, and STILL LOSES.

out. standing.

but regardless we know Spacemonkey, Southern Dad, Jimmy and the rest of the super duper smart gang are cheering and applauding Donald with tears of joy and love (and maybe even more than a little raw sexual attraction) in their eyes.

[John Galt]

it's just a stay though. you know as well as i that it will hold up in actual court. we're talking about the rights of non-americans in not-america, they are completely irrelevant to the constitution

[ToddStarnes]

I suspect you're right but who knows. Trump and his retarded surrogates aren't helping themselves with all their blathering about muslims tho. Jfc he's a legit retard. Anybody see this clown on Carlson last night? He can barely form a sentence.

[exploited]

From what I've read, Trump has basically hanged himself by speaking so openly about religious tests - i.e. while the President has every right to set up these barriers, his open talk about a Muslim ban can be used in court, and is a compelling way to demonstrate his true intentions.

In other words, if he had been even remotely professional about this, the ban would likely be acceptable.

I'm not sure how true this is or what the law says in this regards - any thoughts from our resident attorneys?

[ToddStarnes]

Of course a party's statements weigh on evaluation of intent.

[exploited]

Right, but has this been an important part of why these bans have been overturned? I guess what I'm getting at is how the courts balance between something that is undeniably within the Presidents power and some unconstitutional impact exercising those powers might have. If the President can implement immigration bans for any reason, and devises an order that avoids a religious test, can the Court limit that power based on an analysis of his intentions?

Or is this stay bound for failure, as Galt has suggested?