Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people pretending that the Tea Party was some weird low level event?

Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?

Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?

Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them? OR is that only the case for BLM and the MeToo movement?

Name a single person who speaks for the entirety of both movements.

You're trying to conflate disassociated groups(BLM+MeToo) with a bloc that sticks together quite famously.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people pretending that the Tea Party was some weird low level event?

Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?

Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?

Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them? OR is that only the case for BLM and the MeToo movement?

Name a single person who speaks for the entirety of both movements.

You're trying to conflate disassociated groups(BLM+MeToo) with a bloc that sticks together quite famously.

Also the Tea party was a significant group with a good amount of political clout. It started as a fringe element but become much larger than that.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

 whembly wrote:
This is interesting... the majority officially formalized overruling of Korematsu, since it’s signed by 5 justices...and that they ruled that Democrat hero FDR’s action if WW2 internment is properly characterized here as racist.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Here's the text of the ruling....

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is interesting... the majority officially formalized overruling of Korematsu, since it’s signed by 5 justices...and that they ruled that Democrat hero FDR’s action if WW2 internment is properly characterized here as racist.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Here's the text of the ruling....

Interesting, yes. Did the Supreme Court just throw a "whataboutism" as a ruling ?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I'm sure the turtle is laughing all the way into his shell with these rulings.

But her emails...*sigh*

 d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

Its sarcasm because Cuda was calling them a fringe element

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter.

If the ban is denied, it proves Trump is right. If the ban is granted, it proves Trump is right.

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, as someone who willfully breaks TS clearance laws...who shouldn't have been the democratic nominee.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, as someone who willfully breaks TS clearance laws...who shouldn't have been the democratic nominee.

Sigh. S....M....H

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, as someone who willfully breaks TS clearance laws...who shouldn't have been the democratic nominee.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, as someone who willfully breaks TS clearance laws...who shouldn't have been the democratic nominee.

Someone who violates the Constitution shouldn't be President, but hey, what can you do?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/obscure-no-more-the-emoluments-clause-is-back-again-in-a-federal-court/2018/06/09/cf052832-6a72-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.2e3726bcfeeb


The DoJ is arguing that as long as he doesn't do anything for them, Foreign Governments can pay Trump as much as they like. This seems heavily at odds with previous interpretations of the law, as Presidents traditionally can't even keep gifts from other countries.

 Ouze wrote:
We made Jimmy give up his peanut farm.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
We made Jimmy give up his peanut farm.

Wait did Jimmy Carter actually write that or is it part of the joke XD

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma passes medical marijuana.

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma passes medical marijuana.

The Trump administration will not reunite any migrant children with parents still held in immigrant detention facilities unless federal law is changed, a top administration official told Congress on Tuesday, adding a new level of confusion and fear in the family separation crisis created by the White House.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, testifying on Capitol Hill, provided the clearest statement to date of administration policy and confirmed what immigrant advocates have feared: The only way parents can quickly be reunited with their children is to drop their claims for asylum in the United States and agree to be deported.

If parents pursue asylum claims, administration officials plan to hold them in custody until hearings are complete — a process that can take months and in some instances years because of a backlog of several hundred thousand cases.

And while that process takes place and the parents are in custody, their children will not be returned to them, Azar said, citing current rules that allow children to be held in immigrant detention for no more than 20 days.

“If the parent remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention," Azar told the Senate Finance Committee. He said the department could place children with relatives in the United States if they can be located and properly vetted.

Azar’s department has custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents after they were apprehended crossing the border illegally since May. That’s when the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that required prosecution of all adults crossing the border — and separate detention of any minors with them.

His statement brought angry protests from Democrats and immigrant advocates.

“The administration is holding children hostage to push parents to drop their asylum claims,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tweeted.

 Ustrello wrote:
Here we go again

The Trump administration will not reunite any migrant children with parents still held in immigrant detention facilities unless federal law is changed, a top administration official told Congress on Tuesday, adding a new level of confusion and fear in the family separation crisis created by the White House.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, testifying on Capitol Hill, provided the clearest statement to date of administration policy and confirmed what immigrant advocates have feared: The only way parents can quickly be reunited with their children is to drop their claims for asylum in the United States and agree to be deported.

If parents pursue asylum claims, administration officials plan to hold them in custody until hearings are complete — a process that can take months and in some instances years because of a backlog of several hundred thousand cases.

And while that process takes place and the parents are in custody, their children will not be returned to them, Azar said, citing current rules that allow children to be held in immigrant detention for no more than 20 days.

“If the parent remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention," Azar told the Senate Finance Committee. He said the department could place children with relatives in the United States if they can be located and properly vetted.

Azar’s department has custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents after they were apprehended crossing the border illegally since May. That’s when the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that required prosecution of all adults crossing the border — and separate detention of any minors with them.

His statement brought angry protests from Democrats and immigrant advocates.

“The administration is holding children hostage to push parents to drop their asylum claims,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-house-vote-20180626-story.html

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Here we go again

The Trump administration will not reunite any migrant children with parents still held in immigrant detention facilities unless federal law is changed, a top administration official told Congress on Tuesday, adding a new level of confusion and fear in the family separation crisis created by the White House.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, testifying on Capitol Hill, provided the clearest statement to date of administration policy and confirmed what immigrant advocates have feared: The only way parents can quickly be reunited with their children is to drop their claims for asylum in the United States and agree to be deported.

If parents pursue asylum claims, administration officials plan to hold them in custody until hearings are complete — a process that can take months and in some instances years because of a backlog of several hundred thousand cases.

And while that process takes place and the parents are in custody, their children will not be returned to them, Azar said, citing current rules that allow children to be held in immigrant detention for no more than 20 days.

“If the parent remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention," Azar told the Senate Finance Committee. He said the department could place children with relatives in the United States if they can be located and properly vetted.

Azar’s department has custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents after they were apprehended crossing the border illegally since May. That’s when the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that required prosecution of all adults crossing the border — and separate detention of any minors with them.

His statement brought angry protests from Democrats and immigrant advocates.

“The administration is holding children hostage to push parents to drop their asylum claims,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-house-vote-20180626-story.html

So... you want them to defy the judge?