Palm Sunday attacks: 43 dead, more than 100 injured in church bombings carried out by ISIS in Egypt

[Dashinka 24,584]

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/09/palm-sunday-attacks-43-dead-more-than-100-injured-in-church-bombings-carried-out-by-isis-in-egypt.html

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Incredibly sad

[IAMX 3,055]

Muslim tolerance toward other beliefs in a nutshell. If I were Trump I'd consider just blocking all of MENA traveling to the US until they decide they want to advance beyond the 17th century of handling things they don't like.

Edited April 9, 2017 by SRVT

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

You will be chastised for stereotyping Muslims Monday AM for sure 

[TBoneTX 45,469]

3 hours ago, IAMX said:

If I were Trump I'd consider just blocking all of MENA traveling to the US

A Federal judge somewhere would block that.

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

A Federal judge somewhere would block that.

Trump didn't have the luxury of appealing it to SCOTUS then.. with Gorsuch in (am I blind or was there never a thread about this?) I'm more confident than ever circuit rulings especially in the 9th wouldn't hold up.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Trump didn't have the luxury of appealing it to SCOTUS then.. with Gorsuch in (am I blind or was there never a thread about this?) I'm more confident than ever circuit rulings especially in the 9th wouldn't hold up.

I don't think that Gorsuch is going to be the godsend the far right seems to think (not calling you far right just saying in general).  He seems slightly left of center

[IAMX 3,055]

37 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

I don't think that Gorsuch is going to be the godsend the far right seems to think (not calling you far right just saying in general).  He seems slightly left of center

Yeah no way to tell, he didn't really play his hand one way or another. But I mean, people like Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy obviously have upset conservatives. Those with overtly liberal views still get approved nearly unanimously (with Kagan/Sotomayor being retribution for the Bush filibusters) while those with conservative views (most of W Bush's SCOTUS nominees), or ambiguous views (like Gorsuch) get filibustered.

 

It doesn't take an ideologue to see that restricting immigration falls explicitly in the realm of Constitutional powers delegated to Congress and the President alike. The fact that this is even in question in any circuit court is absolutely insane, but it shows an overly slanted circuit court. If it gets any more slanted might as well elect them to terms.

Edited April 9, 2017 by IAMX

[Transborderwife 4,666]

10 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Yeah no way to tell, he didn't really play his hand one way or another. But I mean, people like Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy obviously have upset conservatives. Those with overtly liberal views still get approved nearly unanimously (with Kagan/Sotomayor being retribution for the Bush filibusters) while those with conservative views (most of W Bush's SCOTUS nominees), or ambiguous views (like Gorsuch) get filibustered.

 

It doesn't take an ideologue to see that restricting immigration falls explicitly in the realm of Constitutional powers delegated to Congress and the President alike. The fact that this is even in question in any circuit court is absolutely insane, but it shows an overly slanted circuit court. If it gets any more slanted might as well elect them to terms.

Heaven forbid a SCOTUS judge judges something from center as opposed to a side...jk

[ready4ONE 5,400]

21 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Yeah no way to tell, he didn't really play his hand one way or another. But I mean, people like Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy obviously have upset conservatives. Those with overtly liberal views still get approved nearly unanimously (with Kagan/Sotomayor being retribution for the Bush filibusters) while those with conservative views (most of W Bush's SCOTUS nominees), or ambiguous views (like Gorsuch) get filibustered.

 

It doesn't take an ideologue to see that restricting immigration falls explicitly in the realm of Constitutional powers delegated to Congress and the President alike. The fact that this is even in question in any circuit court is absolutely insane, but it shows an overly slanted circuit court. If it gets any more slanted might as well elect them to terms.

While SCOTUS does have the power to restrict immigration, doing so strictly on the basis of Religion or Race crosses lines very much in the challengeable realm of the Courts. What is insane is supporting bigotry and hatred.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

While SCOTUS does have the power to restrict immigration, doing so strictly on the basis of Religion or Race crosses lines very much in the challengeable realm of the Courts. What is insane is supporting bigotry and hatred.

That is where the SCOTUS will carefully need to consider is that indeed the issue.  

[OriZ 3,157]

5 hours ago, IAMX said:

Muslim tolerance toward other beliefs in a nutshell. If I were Trump I'd consider just blocking all of MENA traveling to the US until they decide they want to advance beyond the 17th century of handling things they don't like.

That's probably something you could also do only in the 17th century.

[IAMX 3,055]

34 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

Heaven forbid a SCOTUS judge judges something from center as opposed to a side...jk

LOL

 

But seriously, before Bork the merits of a judge was merely the bar.. even after Bork the bar was the standard. Now they have these grilling litmus tests, more like a "gotcha" game, to see if they can get a SCOTUS nominee to say something stupid to justify public tantrums. 

 

Senate stupidity, as usual. Need to reduce the years of their terms down from 6 to 2, especially in light of these filibusters going to the wayside. And restrict their terms.

 

 

19 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

While SCOTUS does have the power to restrict immigration, doing so strictly on the basis of Religion or Race crosses lines very much in the challengeable realm of the Courts. What is insane is supporting bigotry and hatred.

The issue is district courts, particularly from the 9th, ruling Trump's constitutional restrictions upon immigration illlegal. It's not even a new precedent being set.. right off the top of my head, Jimmy Carter blocked multiple countries, and it was perfectly legal then too, where were the left to whine about this? Nextly, there's nothing to do with bigotry and hatred. This is just the left's signature whining statement to anything that they oppose. SCOTUS has significant deference to the Constitution and the Presidents authority particularly in cases like this where the Presidents power isn't even ambiguous. The only thing inane here is the 9th trying to overrule the Constitution it's supposed to be bound by. I have confidence SCOTUS would actually do its job instead of try and redefine the Constitution as they see fit.

Edited April 10, 2017 by IAMX

[ready4ONE 5,400]

5 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

While SCOTUS does have the power to restrict immigration, doing so strictly on the basis of Religion or Race crosses lines very much in the challengeable realm of the Courts. What is insane is supporting bigotry and hatred.

SCOTUS but meant POTUS. Oops!

 

4 hours ago, IAMX said:

LOL

 

But seriously, before Bork the merits of a judge was merely the bar.. even after Bork the bar was the standard. Now they have these grilling litmus tests, more like a "gotcha" game, to see if they can get a SCOTUS nominee to say something stupid to justify public tantrums. 

 

Senate stupidity, as usual. Need to reduce the years of their terms down from 6 to 2, especially in light of these filibusters going to the wayside. And restrict their terms.

 

 

The issue is district courts, particularly from the 9th, ruling Trump's constitutional restrictions upon immigration illlegal. It's not even a new precedent being set.. right off the top of my head, Jimmy Carter blocked multiple countries, and it was perfectly legal then too, where were the left to whine about this? Nextly, there's nothing to do with bigotry and hatred. This is just the left's signature whining statement to anything that they oppose. SCOTUS has significant deference to the Constitution and the Presidents authority particularly in cases like this where the Presidents power isn't even ambiguous. The only thing inane here is the 9th trying to overrule the Constitution it's supposed to be bound by. I have confidence SCOTUS would actually do its job instead of try and redefine the Constitution as they see fit.

Donald Trump and his Flying Circus have been very clear in their bigotry vis a vis Muslims and Brown people in general. The issues brought to multiple Judges, in multiple States, are far more complicated than you seem to think it is. And this far Team Trump has lost every time.

 

Having said that, I have no idea why the Democrats chose to fight the Gorsuch nomination tooth and nail knowing that they were going to lose. I think he was one of Donald Trumps decent choices, of which he has made precious few, but it was equally ridiculous that the Republicans wouldn't consider Obamas nominee as well.

Edited April 10, 2017 by ready4ONE

[Transborderwife 4,666]

I think that it's really sad that this thread is getting this way due to the original subject matter.

 

i extend to you all a peace offering of maple syrup and timbits