How Do We Get That Judge....

[DONW]

It doesn't have to for my statement to be true.

False, wrong again. Those muslims in Guantonomo had no rights as US citizens do.

[Guisslapp]

False, wrong again. Those muslims in Guantonomo had no rights as US citizens do.

The Supreme Court said they (detainees of Guantanamo) have the rights to due process and equal protection because (1) due process applies to all persons, and (2) equal protection attaches where we assert jurisdiction.

Also, the First Amendment applies as well - as it is a prohibition on the government in the general sense.

And if some non-citizen ignores our ban and shows up at an airport, and we detain them, they get most of our constitutional protections.

[PawDawg]

Yeah, well, "intent" is relevant when it comes to whether laws are discriminatory and violate the constitution.

That's a long way from where you started out here.

But this was an entirely self-inflicted wound because Trump cannot control his impulses and had to advertise it as a "Muslim ban."

You implied he spoke about his executive order being a "Muslim ban", but he never did that. Sounds good to you and CNN though right?

[DawgyNWindow]

The Supreme Court said they (detainees of Guantanamo) have the rights to due process and equal protection because (1) due process applies to all persons, and (2) equal protection attaches where we assert jurisdiction.

But they are still there, detained, some with no charges and most without a scheduled court date. Obama contested every due process ruling by taking his case to a conservative court in DC, much like the libs today are taking their case to the liberal courts. I have to give Obama credit for keeping dangerous folks locked up.

What supreme court ruling are you referring to? I have never seen anything about them being granted due process. I did see they were granted some habeas corpus rights, but I don't see where they've gotten any where with that ruling. I guess now that Trump is president, the safety of Americans won't be as important and the same folks running to the DC courts to keep these people detained will now run to the left coast to have them released (and compensated for their horrible treatment).

Honestly, if they are a danger to America and freedom loving people worldwide, I say just kill them. What is the difference between doing that and flying a drone over their breakfast table and firing a missile at them?

[Guisslapp]

That's a long way from where you started out here.



You implied he spoke about his executive order being a "Muslim ban", but he never did that. Sounds good to you and CNN though right?

That is why it is entirely self-inflicted. If he would have not said that stupid stuff during his campaign, the argument that the law was discriminatory would be far weaker.

There was this.
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/986790...-trump-muslims

And then this helped solidify what the intent of the new EO was.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...im-ban-legally

[Guisslapp]

But they are still there, detained, some with no charges and most without a scheduled court date. Obama contested every due process ruling by taking his case to a conservative court in DC, much like the libs today are taking their case to the liberal courts. I have to give Obama credit for keeping dangerous folks locked up.

What supreme court ruling are you referring to? I have never seen anything about them being granted due process. I did see they were granted some habeas corpus rights, but I don't see where they've gotten any where with that ruling. I guess now that Trump is president, the safety of Americans won't be as important and the same folks running to the DC courts to keep these people detained will now run to the left coast to have them released (and compensated for their horrible treatment).

Honestly, if they are a danger to America and freedom loving people worldwide, I say just kill them. What is the difference between doing that and flying a drone over their breakfast table and firing a missile at them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Yes, the right to habeas was what was at issue.

[PawDawg]

That is why it is entirely self-inflicted. If he would have not said that stupid stuff during his campaign, the argument that the law was discriminatory would be far weaker.

There was this.
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/986790...-trump-muslims

And then this helped solidify what the intent of the new EO was.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...im-ban-legally

Even you know his intent was not to ban muslims, but the demographic that happened to be 100% muslim. He mispoke. He has many times.

You continue to deny the double standard that forgives misspeak for liberals, but puts conservatives under a micro-scope.

[Guisslapp]

Even you know his intent was not to ban muslims, but the demographic that happened to be 100% muslim. He mispoke. He has many times.

You continue to deny the double standard that forgives misspeak for liberals, but puts conservatives under a micro-scope.

Actually, I do think he said what he intended and he said it because he knew it would appeal to his base.

Furthermore, I do think the EO was rolled out to fulfill his campaign promise ("Muslim ban", which sort of morphed into "extreme vetting", but at that point his discriminatory intent became inextricably linked to both concepts).

I do believe he rolled out the first version without giving due consideration to its constitutional problems. It was overly broad capturing green card holders and was unnecessarily flaunting religious aspects of the ban by providing preference to "religious minorities" (read: Christians and Jews).

These were self-inflicted wounds.

[DawgBark]

"I have to give Obama credit for keeping dangerous folks locked up."

Not really...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...in-afghanistan

[DONW]

The Supreme Court said they (detainees of Guantanamo) have the rights to due process and equal protection because (1) due process applies to all persons, and (2) equal protection attaches where we assert jurisdiction.

Also, the First Amendment applies as well - as it is a prohibition on the government in the general sense.

And if some non-citizen ignores our ban and shows up at an airport, and we detain them, they get most of our constitutional protections.

I'm going by what REALLY happened. Some of those were kept at Guantonomo for over 10 years.

[Guisslapp]

I'm going by what REALLY happened. Some of those were kept at Guantonomo for over 10 years.

But they were given the right to submit petitions for habeas - that doesn't mean that they would all prevail on their petitions. Some did - including the guy whose case was the subject of the Supreme Court decision.

Bottom line - as soon as the US exerts jurisdiction (and that would include detaining someone at an airport or an illegal border crossing) the foreign national has rights to due process and equal protection.

Bottom line - the goverment can't pass laws showing religious preference. Absent Trump's self-defeating rhetoric, a ban on certain countries could have been upheld. But he provided evidence of discriminatory intent.

[DONW]

But they were given the right to submit petitions for habeas - that doesn't mean that they would all prevail on their petitions. Some did - including the guy whose case was the subject of the Supreme Court decision.

Bottom line - as soon as the US exerts jurisdiction (and that would include detaining someone at an airport or an illegal border crossing) the foreign national has rights to due process and equal protection.

Bottom line - the goverment can't pass laws showing religious preference. Absent Trump's self-defeating rhetoric, a ban on certain countries could have been upheld. But he provided evidence of discriminatory intent.

This wasn't a muslim ban, but, these are muslims doing these mass killings. Britain's investigation just led them to Libya where they arrested the father and brother of the murderer. I doubt if they were looking for Buddhists , Christians, or Jews or atheists. That does narrow the search when you're looking for terrorists that murder 8 year olds.

[Guisslapp]

This wasn't a muslim ban.

Doesn't matter - religion is a protected class under the equal protection clause and Trump and Co.'s comments were used against them to show that the motivation was to discriminate based on religion - in other words some Muslims were targeted for being Muslim.

[DONW]

Doesn't matter - religion is a protected class under the equal protection clause and Trump and Co.'s comments were used against them to show that the motivation was to discriminate based on religion - in other words some Muslims were targeted for being Muslim.

We're not having mass killings by christians , jews, buddhists or atheists. Only muslims are murdering 8 year olds because their god told them to do it.

[Guisslapp]

We're not having mass killings by christians , jews, buddhists or atheists. Only muslims are murdering 8 year olds because their god told them to do it.

Doesn't matter. If you don't like our constitution, there are other places you can live.