Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

So, we've got the Kavanaugh sexual assault hearings and the possible firing of Rosenstein (a prelude to shutting down the Mueller probe) both slated for Thursday, in addition to midterms being a month and a half out. Feels like a lot of stuff is about to come to a head.

[The Romulan Republic]

I... may be in love with Stormy Daniels (then again, she did have the bad taste to sleep with Trump in the first place):

https://www.newsweek.com/stormy-daniels ... ny-1172507

"'Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials [sic] lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.' @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!"

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present your president. In addition to his...ummm...shortcomings, he has demonstrated his incompetence, hatred of women and lack of self control on Twitter AGAIN! And perhaps a penchant for bestiality. Game on, Tiny.

[FaxModem1]

Axios

SAVE
Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

Show less
[Get more stories like this in our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM. Sign up here.]

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "

Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.

But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.

Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.

Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.

The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

So, here comes a rather big decision for American policy. I'm not liking the direction we're going.

[Highlord Laan]

It actually is flagrantly unconstitutional, but it's not like the worthless motherfuckers in congress or the supreme court will do anything to stop him.

[Mr Bean]

It actually is flagrantly unconstitutional, but it's not like the worthless motherfuckers in congress or the supreme court will do anything to stop him.

No, I'm sure the Supreme Court will say heck no to that, more than likely 7-2 with John Roberts,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and I'm betting Samuel Alito because that cuts to close constitutional conservative principles only Thomas who is a bought and paid for stooge who thinks when his wife is not being paid for his vote and Brett Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh might vote against the majority and if Alito votes for then I think the other two to not look bad for history will join.

It's 14th amendment pure and simple. I'm pretty sure ever court including the Supreme will say sorry Congress has to change this.
If they don't they give up a massive chunk of their power and I don't think Alito will stand for that, Roberts sure as hell won't.

[Tribble]

Either way, great political stunt to whip up conservative support before the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

They've now reached the point of stripping minorities' citizenship (and the rights that come with it) by Presidential fiat.

Fascist dictatorship in America is no longer a hypothetical. It is happening, right here, right now.

This should terrify everyone, regardless of whether it targets them. Because if fundamental Constitutional rights can be revoked with nothing more than an executive order from the President... then there are no rights.

I guess we find out now if the Supreme Court has been thoroughly brought under Trump's sway, but even presuming that he doesn't get another Justice in before it works its way up to the Supreme Court, I'm not confident of anything better than 3/6 against, and possibly 5/4.

Its also all the more essential that we gain control of Congress (including the Senate) and as many state governments as possible, both to block any more Trump court nominations, and because if this does get shot down in the courts, they WILL try to ram through a citizenship amendment.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that we have reached the point where I must now rescind my previous opposition to the formation of Left-wing militias. I do so with considerable misgivings, because militias tend to attract undisciplined and trigger-happy people who are likely to instigate violence, rather than merely prepare to defend against it, and once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very hard to ever put it back. I still maintain that it is absolutely vital, if we are to have the political support we need, that the Left/Democrats not be seen as the aggressors in any violent clash. I want to be very clear that I am not advocating initiating violence, or the use of violence as a means of advancing a political agenda, and I believe that we should not hesitate to call out anyone on our own "side" who advocates doing so. But between Trump's incitement of political violence against his critics, the mass deployment of troops to the US border immediately before election day, and this latest development, all following on the Kavanaugh hearings' demonstration of the Senate's utter unwillingness to act as a check on Trump and his allies and the likelihood that the Senate will remain in Republican hands, one would have to be blind not to see the groundwork being laid for a purge of minorities and dissidents in the US. By the time something like that starts to happen, it is too late to start to prepare. We need to be arming and organizing now, so that the means to defend ourselves are available if we need them. In short, we have reached a point where I feel that the risk of needless escalation is now outweighed by the risk of being caught unprepared.

[The Romulan Republic]

FYI, the day that the detention or deportation of people who have had their Constitutionally-protected citizenship "revoked" by Presidential decree becomes implemented as Federal policy, is the day that I will declare my support for armed revolt.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump revokes CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass on a transparently false accusation of assaulting a female intern:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-call ... -1.4167573

NEW YORK -- The White House on Wednesday suspended the press pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after he and U.S. President Donald Trump had a heated confrontation during a news conference.
They began sparring after Acosta asked Trump about the caravan of migrants heading from Latin America to the southern U.S. border. When Acosta tried to follow up with another question, Trump said, "That's enough!" and a female White House aide unsuccessfully tried to grab the microphone from Acosta.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders released a statement accusing Acosta of "placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern," calling it "absolutely unacceptable."

RELATED STORIES
Jeff Sessions pushed out after a year of attacks from Trump
What does the Democratic House win mean for Donald Trump?
U.S. midterm results could delay new trade deal into 2020, watchers warn
PHOTOS
U.S. President Donald Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump watches as a White House aide reaches to take away a microphone from CNN journalist Jim Acosta during a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The interaction between Acosta and the intern was brief, and Acosta appeared to brush her arm as she reached for the microphone and he tried to hold onto it. "Pardon me, ma'am," he told her.
Acosta tweeted that Sanders' statement that he put his hands on the aide was "a lie."
CNN said in a statement that the White House revoked Acosta's press pass out of "retaliation for his challenging questions" Wednesday, and the network accused Sanders of lying about Acosta's actions.
"(Sanders) provided fraudulent accusations and cited an incident that never happened. This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better," CNN said. "Jim Acosta has our full support."
Journalists assigned to cover the White House apply for passes that allow them daily access to press areas in the West Wing. White House staffers decide whether journalists are eligible, though the Secret Service determines whether their applications are approved.
The post-midterm election news conference marked a new low in the president's relationship with journalists.
"It's such a hostile media," Trump said after ordering reporter April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks to sit down when she tried to ask him a question.
The president complained that the media did not cover the humming economy and was responsible for much of the country's divided politics. He said, "I can do something fantastic, and they make it look not good."
His exchanges with CNN's Acosta and NBC News' Peter Alexander turned bitterly personal, unusual even for a forum where the nature of their jobs often put presidents and the press at odds.
"I came in here as a nice person wanting to answer questions, and I had people jumping out of their seats screaming questions at me," said Trump, who talked for nearly 90 minutes despite the run-ins with reporters.
Acosta asked Trump why the caravan of migrants was emphasized as an issue in the just-concluded midterm races, and he questioned Trump's reference to the caravan as an invasion.
"You should let me run the country," Trump said. "You run CNN and if you did it well, your ratings would be much better."
After Acosta asked about the investigation of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, Trump tried to turn to Alexander, but Acosta continued to ask questions.
"CNN should be ashamed of itself having you work for them," the president said to Acosta. "You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN. The way you treat Sarah Sanders is horrible. The way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way."
Alexander came to his colleague's defence. "I've travelled with him and watched him," Alexander said. "He's a diligent reporter who busts his butt like the rest of us."
"I'm not a big fan of yours, either," Trump replied.
"I understand," Alexander said, attempting to ask a question. Acosta stood back up and noted the explosive devices that were recently sent to CNN and some of the president's political opponents.
"Just sit down," Trump said. "When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people."
CNN said Trump's attacks on the press have gone too far.
"They are not only dangerous, they are disturbingly un-American," CNN tweeted after the exchange. "While President Trump has made it clear he does not respect a free press, he has a sworn obligation to protect it. A free press is vital to democracy, and we stand behind Jim Acosta and his fellow journalists everywhere."
In announcing Acosta's suspension, Sanders said, "The fact that CNN is proud of the way their employee behaved is not only disgusting, it is an example of their outrageous disregard for everyone, including young women, who work in this administration."
The White House Correspondents Association released a statement Wednesday saying it "strongly objects to the Trump Administration's decision to use U.S. Secret Service security credentials as a tool to punish a reporter with whom it has a difficult relationship. Revoking access to the White House complex is a reaction out of line to the purported offence and is unacceptable."
The WHCA called on the White House to "immediately reverse this weak and misguided action."
During the news conference, Trump also turned on reporter Yamiche Alcindor of PBS' "NewsHour." She said that "on the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists." Trump interrupted her, calling it a racist question.
Alcindor pressed on: "There are some people who say the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you say to that?"
"What you said is so insulting to me," he said. "It's a very terrible thing you said to me."
Alcindor moved on to a different topic. Later, via Twitter, she said that she has interviewed white nationalists who say they are more excited by Trump than they have been about other presidents. "Even if President Trump doesn't intend it, some see him as directly appealing to the racists," she wrote.
Trump told Ryan, of American Urban Radio Networks, repeatedly to sit down when she attempted to ask Trump about accusations of voter suppression. He said she was rude for interrupting another reporter, though he did briefly answer one of Ryan's questions.
------
This story has been corrected to show the NBC News correspondent is named Peter Alexander, not Peter Garrett.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I saw this on ITV news, clearly Big Orange didn't think the cameras would be rolling since the footage clearly shows his justification to be bullshit, as well as his oft-repeated claim of "Fake news".

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Same news conference where being asked if he was a white nationalist was considered racist.

[Civil War Man]

White House reposts a doctored video from InfoWars to try to justify revoking Acosta's credentials

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited video was first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Watson said he did not change the speed of the video and that claims he had altered it were a “brazen lie.” Watson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, told BuzzFeed he created the video by downloading an animated image from conservative news site Daily Wire, zooming in and saving it as a video — a conversion he says could have made it “look a tiny bit different.”

Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

The video has quickly become a flashpoint in the battle over viral misinformation, turning a live interaction watched by thousands in real time into just another ideological tug-of-war. But it has also highlighted how video content — long seen as an unassailable verification tool for truth and confirmation — has become as vulnerable to political distortion as anything else.

Albright said videos like this pose an even greater risk of perpetuating misinformation than completely faked news videos, because they contain a grain of truth and will likely be given the assumption of accuracy.

“The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way,” he said. “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched ... and molded into weaponized evidence.”

Sanders’s tweet of the edited video, in which she said the White House would “not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video,” has at least 20,000 retweets and more than 2 million views. Watson’s video, posted two hours before, has been seen at least 740,000 times.

Matt Dornic, a CNN communications executive, tweeted that Sanders’s sharing of the video was “absolutely shameful." “You released a doctored video - actual fake news. History will not be kind to you,” he wrote.

On Thursday, Sanders said, "The question is: did the reporter make contact or not? The video is clear, he did. We stand by our statement.”

During Wednesday’s White House news conference, Acosta and Trump sparred over a question of whether Trump had “demonized immigrants” by calling a caravan of Central American migrants “an invasion.” Following a lengthy back-and-forth, a White House intern tried to take the microphone from Acosta, who held onto it. “Pardon me, ma’am,” Acosta said in the original video, though the audio was stripped from the edited version.

On Wednesday night, Sanders accused Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman” and said his press credentials would be suspended “until further notice.” Press advocates called the move an unprecedented retaliation against a journalist.

The seconds-long interaction has been analyzed in excruciating detail and likened to a 21st-century “Zapruder film,” the closely scrutinized amateur video of late President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. On social media, it has quickly become an object of massive ideological division, in which the same scene is open to very different interpretations.

Watson wrote on Infowars that Acosta “clearly uses his left arm to physically resist/restrain the woman," and that he “overpowered her.” Infowars, whose conspiracy theories include the baseless claim that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, was banned this year by Facebook, Google and Twitter for sharing offensive or threatening content.

In another video of the encounter tweeted by Sarah Burris, an editor at the left-leaning political blog Raw Story, the footage has been slowed down and annotated to show the four times the White House intern touches Acosta while trying to take the microphone. It has been viewed more than 1 million times.

Just your daily reminder that when it comes to this cabal, there is no bottom.

[The Romulan Republic]

It actually is flagrantly unconstitutional, but it's not like the worthless motherfuckers in congress or the supreme court will do anything to stop him.

No, I'm sure the Supreme Court will say heck no to that, more than likely 7-2 with John Roberts,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and I'm betting Samuel Alito because that cuts to close constitutional conservative principles only Thomas who is a bought and paid for stooge who thinks when his wife is not being paid for his vote and Brett Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh might vote against the majority and if Alito votes for then I think the other two to not look bad for history will join.

It's 14th amendment pure and simple. I'm pretty sure ever court including the Supreme will say sorry Congress has to change this.
If they don't they give up a massive chunk of their power and I don't think Alito will stand for that, Roberts sure as hell won't.

I'm a bit more pessimistic, but I'd expect 5/4 or 3/6 unless Roberts has completely lost his mind. Admittedly, his approval of the revised Muslim ban, and Trump's sorry excuses for it, have shaken my confidence in his judicial impartiality.

And thank God we have the House now, which means any attempt to change this in Congress is stopped dead in its tracks the moment it hits the floor.

Still, its sickening that this is even under discussion.

[The Romulan Republic]

White House reposts a doctored video from InfoWars to try to justify revoking Acosta's credentials

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited video was first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Watson said he did not change the speed of the video and that claims he had altered it were a “brazen lie.” Watson, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, told BuzzFeed he created the video by downloading an animated image from conservative news site Daily Wire, zooming in and saving it as a video — a conversion he says could have made it “look a tiny bit different.”

Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

The video has quickly become a flashpoint in the battle over viral misinformation, turning a live interaction watched by thousands in real time into just another ideological tug-of-war. But it has also highlighted how video content — long seen as an unassailable verification tool for truth and confirmation — has become as vulnerable to political distortion as anything else.

Albright said videos like this pose an even greater risk of perpetuating misinformation than completely faked news videos, because they contain a grain of truth and will likely be given the assumption of accuracy.

“The most dangerous type of fake news and reporting and evidence is when you get into the fine details, the nuanced things that are shaped to present a certain viewpoint or decision or news a certain way,” he said. “It’s not AI-generated or completely false. It’s something that’s real but has been literally stretched ... and molded into weaponized evidence.”

Sanders’s tweet of the edited video, in which she said the White House would “not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video,” has at least 20,000 retweets and more than 2 million views. Watson’s video, posted two hours before, has been seen at least 740,000 times.

Matt Dornic, a CNN communications executive, tweeted that Sanders’s sharing of the video was “absolutely shameful." “You released a doctored video - actual fake news. History will not be kind to you,” he wrote.

On Thursday, Sanders said, "The question is: did the reporter make contact or not? The video is clear, he did. We stand by our statement.”

During Wednesday’s White House news conference, Acosta and Trump sparred over a question of whether Trump had “demonized immigrants” by calling a caravan of Central American migrants “an invasion.” Following a lengthy back-and-forth, a White House intern tried to take the microphone from Acosta, who held onto it. “Pardon me, ma’am,” Acosta said in the original video, though the audio was stripped from the edited version.

On Wednesday night, Sanders accused Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman” and said his press credentials would be suspended “until further notice.” Press advocates called the move an unprecedented retaliation against a journalist.

The seconds-long interaction has been analyzed in excruciating detail and likened to a 21st-century “Zapruder film,” the closely scrutinized amateur video of late President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. On social media, it has quickly become an object of massive ideological division, in which the same scene is open to very different interpretations.

Watson wrote on Infowars that Acosta “clearly uses his left arm to physically resist/restrain the woman," and that he “overpowered her.” Infowars, whose conspiracy theories include the baseless claim that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, was banned this year by Facebook, Google and Twitter for sharing offensive or threatening content.

In another video of the encounter tweeted by Sarah Burris, an editor at the left-leaning political blog Raw Story, the footage has been slowed down and annotated to show the four times the White House intern touches Acosta while trying to take the microphone. It has been viewed more than 1 million times.

Just your daily reminder that when it comes to this cabal, there is no bottom.

They really have gone full-Orwellian.

Here's hoping Acosta sues the Trump administration and Infowars for defamation.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Trump can invoke executive privilege, while Jones is unfazed by the number of lawsuits against him alrwady. In fact, those suits allow him to double down on his persecution complex and hate speech, while his inbred, moronic fans buy his stuff.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump may claim that executive privilege shields him from lawsuits, but that hasn't yet been established in Court. Admittedly, the current Supreme Court might very well rule in his favor on that, thanks to Justice Perjury.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Moans may also try to pass the doctored video off as entertainment(in which case his lawyers can claim there was no malice intended) or satire, which is protected speech.

I'm not saying either would hold water, but there is Jester Kavity Kreep to consider,

[Ziggy Stardust]

Admittedly, his approval of the revised Muslim ban, and Trump's sorry excuses for it, have shaken my confidence in his judicial impartiality.

I don't want to kindle another debate on the Muslim ban, but I don't think is the best example to use to try and discredit Roberts. I may be mistaken, but from my recollection the issue with the Muslim ban was that, however immoral, there was still enough legal precedent for the action, and enough vagaries in the exact limits of presidential authority, as to make it difficult to overturn. My point being is that you could still reasonably expect a perfectly neutral (in partisan terms) judge failing to overturn the ban purely on legal ground despite of any personal moral opposition to it; which is, really, how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate (though it admittedly often fails to live up to that standard).

I don't know enough about Roberts voting record in general to really say what he is like one way or the other, but I just want to point out I don't think this specific case, in and of itself, is evidence of anything in particular.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that however Trump (or his subordinates) tried to dress it up, the intent was still clearly to single out a particular group of people by law, and thus it was a violation of the 14th. Amendment (you know, the one Trump is now trying to gut by executive order).

[Ziggy Stardust]

Please educate yourself on the actual legal case surrounding the Muslim ban before making such strong proclamations about it. I'm not even trying to be a dick about this, it's just legitimately frustrating that you refuse to try and understand the details of the situation. In fact, it seems like you are conflating this situation with a DIFFERENT situation, which is the only reason why I suspect you brought up the 14th Amendment, since it is irrelevant to the Muslim ban. The 14th Amendment is the grounds being used to challenge the Birthright Citizens Clause, and has nothing to do with the Muslim ban.

You can't even bother to keep your basic facts on the matter straight, then proceeding to pontificate about the ramifications of your misunderstanding of the facts like some Fox News pundit. Seriously, that's what you sound like, right now, in the way you ignore most of what I say in my post and respond with a barrage of inaccurate blather.

I'll try to keep this brief, since the case is actually quite complicated (as I tried to explain to you in my last post). The constitutional challenges towards the Muslim ban were based on the First Amendment (specifically the Establishment and Free Enterprise clauses). The primary non-constitutional legal challenge was that the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965. The Supreme Court only ruled that the INA's rather vague language grants the executive branch broad powers in limiting immigration, and that nothing about the ban was explicitly exceeding the (again, broad/vague) bounds set by previously existing law. They didn't even rule that the ban itself was constitutional; rather, they remanded the case to lower courts for further review. The big deal was that, in contrast to the decisions of the lower courses, they lifted the injunction on the ban while this review was ongoing. It is worth pointing out that although the decision was 5-4, both Breyer and Kagan actually agreed with the legal argument that the ban did not exceed the bounds of the INA, but disagreed specifically with the lifting of the injunction. Of the remaining 2 opinions, both Sotomayor and Ginsburg both disagreed on the grounds of the First Amendment, but again didn't disagree with the arguments vis-a-vis the broad bounds of the INA.

In other words, the lower courts ruled "We don't know whether this is legal, so the order can't go into action until someone can prove that it is legal." The Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled "We don't know whether this is legal, but the order will go into action until someone can prove that it is illegal." This is a very subtle difference, more subtle than I suspect you are giving it credit for. It is, in fact, philosophically similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle; the Supreme Court is saying that since we can't prove the ban is illegal beyond the shadow of a doubt, then the ban is de-facto legal (but, again, they simply remanded the case for further review, they didn't dismiss it outright).

As a further fun fact of which you are likely unaware, it was in the course of this decision that the Supreme Court, for the first time, finally repudiated the internment of Japanese in prison camps during WW2 as unconstitutional. So, again, the real significance of the Supreme Court's decision and the actual ramifications of it are quite nuanced. I'm not even trying to say that the decision is completely correct or flawless or even that I agree with it (because, for the record, I do NOT; I have always been vocal about my opposition to the expansive powers given to the executive branch), I'm trying to explain to you that it's a complicated issue that it is entirely possible for reasonable, intelligent, non-racist people to actually disagree on, purely from a legal perspective. I've said multiple times I'm only talking about the actual legal side of it (which is what is most relevant, seeing as it's the Court's job and all), not on a moral ground, which is a completely different argument altogether.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I'm aware that the birthright citizenship issue is a separate one- the only things they share in common to my knowledge are Trumpian bigotry and being in my opinion 14th. Amendment violations. But I'll acknowledge that the 14th. Amendment was not the basis on which the Muslim ban was being contested (even if it perhaps should have been).

The history of the case you posted is interesting, although I still feel that the Supreme Court acted in error- broadly discriminatory laws should not be deemed innocent until prove guilty, because laws are not people, and do not have the rights of people. If the constitutionality of a law discriminating against a large group of people is in doubt, it should not be law.

But... you don't get to say you're not trying to be a dick and then compare me to a Fox News pundit. That's just "Both Sides" trolling and you know it. Leaving aside for a moment the factual merits of my arguments, the difference is this: I am arguing from a desire to protect the rights of all people. They are arguing from a desire to strip them, and trod them under heel.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Wouldn't the Muslim travel ban be considered a bill of attainder? Or not, because it was an executive order, rather than an act of Congress?

[houser2112]

How does the Muslim travel ban violate the 14th? The closest is Section 1, which defines who is a US citizen, but the travel ban is explicitly about people who aren't citizens.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The history of the case you posted is interesting, although I still feel that the Supreme Court acted in error- broadly discriminatory laws should not be deemed innocent until prove guilty, because laws are not people, and do not have the rights of people. If the constitutionality of a law discriminating against a large group of people is in doubt, it should not be law.

As I said in my post, I ALSO feel that the Supreme Court was wrong. Did you not notice that part? I'm trying not to get frustrated with you, because we have similar opinions on the topic, but it really feels like you aren't taking the time to read or understand my posts in any detail before responding. As I've said, the purpose of my post was not to defend the Muslim ban, or the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, but simply to point out that from a legal perspective the issue is surprisingly complicated, in no small part due to a half-century of precedent in expanding executive writ with vague boundaries on its extent. And that it is possible for someone to agree that the ban is morally repugnant, as we both do, but to ALSO acknowledge that it unfortunately exists in a legal grey area, due to the fact that the powers of the executive branch are nebulously laid out in legal precedent.

But... you don't get to say you're not trying to be a dick and then compare me to a Fox News pundit. That's just "Both Sides" trolling and you know it.

No, it's not "Both Sides" trolling, if you actually bothered to read my post I was extremely explicit and transparent about my opinions and motivations on the issue. It is extraordinarily frustrating that you continue to gloss over the substance of my arguments to engage in histrionics.

Leaving aside for a moment the factual merits of my arguments,

The point was that there WAS no factual merit to your argument. You were extraordinarily wrong on the facts of the issue. I've demonstrated this rather strongly. Jesus, man, I'm not even asking you to change your opinion on the Muslim ban, I'm literally only asking that you make an attempt to understand the actual implications of the Supreme Court decision; I really don't understand why you are trying to die on a hill that nobody is asking you to die on.