Political Funny Pictures Thread, pt. 2

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    Well, not yet. Let's dial back the celebrations until there is an actual decision.

    I respectfully disagree. It's close enough to celebrate. SCOTUS did narrow the scope, persons with a legitimates ties to the US from one of the 6 countries are be able to enter but those without ties are not. What is important to note is that the ban is for 90 days. SCOTUS, at the earliest will not hear the case for at least 96 days, 6 days past when it expires. There is a travel ban on refugees that also goes along with this and it's for 120 days, so at the earliest SCOTUS will hear the case with 24 days left in that ban. Does anyone think that they will be able to reach a decision before the 120 days is up? So in reality the travel ban is in effect for the entire time that was originally sought. Plus the fact that all 9 Judges agreed to it says something about the folly that is the 9th Circuit.

    And to add that, while the decission was a per curium order, three of Judges did write an opinion in support of reversing the lower Courts ruling entirely and allowing the full ban as originally written.

    This isn't just about the travel ban, it's about the the Left using the Courts to thwart legal Executive Orders because they don't like who won the election so anytime they suffer a set back is time to celebrate.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,555
    149
    Columbus, OH
    All 9 agreed to hear the case. That is far from all 9 showing their cards as upholding the ban.

    I thought the lifting of a stay meant that the court hearing the case believed the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits? Am I incorrect or does this not apply to SCOTUS?
     

    Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    All 9 agreed to hear the case. That is far from all 9 showing their cards as upholding the ban.

    I believe you missed my point, whether it's intentional or not I can't say. I will not repeat it since all you have to do is read it again.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    36,179
    149
    Valparaiso
    I believe you missed my point, whether it's intentional or not I can't say. I will not repeat it since all you have to do is read it again.

    I got your point. This is half-win at this point, probably closer to 40%.

    I thought the lifting of a stay meant that the court hearing the case believed the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits? Am I incorrect or does this not apply to SCOTUS?

    Not exactly. In order to get an injunction they need to make this showing. Lifting it does not require the same showing. What it more likely reflects is the fact that the government action (EO) arrives at the court with the presumption of validity. Allowing it to go into effect reflects this presumption, which ism of course, rebuttable. The Court did something odd, essentially allowing the injunction in some circumstances and lifting it in other, presumably, because the showing of danger from the portions not lifted was not strong. What we have at this point is an analysis of standards of review and presumptions, not opinions about the ultimate decision.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,555
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Hough, would like to proffer props for the arguably tireless work that the INGO lawyers, such as yourself, T.Lex, Fargo etc, perform to give laypersons such as myself a window into the world of the law/legal system. I want to say how much I appreciate it while it's fresh in my mind

     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,238
    113
    Merrillville
    19511239_2048671438732085_1668176010888993098_n.jpg
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    37,730
    113
    .
    Well, you know. With the right encouragement...

    You can't underestimate the social value for a white heterosexual couple to have a transgendered child. It absolves many sins of privilege while allowing endless virtue-signaling.

    The sarcasm is strong with this one.;)
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom