If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   After his travel ban was struck down again, Trump Tweets: "Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again," and by "it" he apparently means "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court of the United States, travel ban, United States, so-called travel ban, Trump, District Court ruling, President Trump, President of the United States  
•       •       •

698 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2017 at 3:32 PM (49 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-06-13 11:47:20 AM  
Britney Spears - Oops!...I Did It Again (Official Video)
Youtube CduA0TULnow
 
2017-06-13 11:59:22 AM  
Yeah. So did you, f*cktard
 
2017-06-13 12:37:57 PM  
Is it too generous at this point to say that The President is throwing the game on this EO?  I know he's proud and stubborn and whatnot, but hear me out... he doesn't NEED the travel ban, and the cooler heads that run his show know that.  What he NEEDS is (a) to look like he tried, like, super hard and (b) a villain to cast himself against.  All of that is strictly to placate his base.  Ban, no ban, the good people of Bumf*ck East aren't going to be affected either way in a practical sense, but he promised them to get rid of the Muslims and darn if he's not trying his hardest.

Look at all the dim-wit memes that Trumpers love to share: "Never has a man been so reviled for simply trying to do what is best for the country."  Gag me with a f*cking spoon.
 
2017-06-13 12:40:45 PM  
SEE YOU IN COURT, COURT!
 
2017-06-13 02:21:14 PM  
Look, just because the President said it's a Muslim ban doesn't mean that it's a Muslim ban!!!
 
2017-06-13 03:09:49 PM  

factoryconnection: Is it too generous at this point to say that The President is throwing the game on this EO?  I know he's proud and stubborn and whatnot, but hear me out... he doesn't NEED the travel ban, and the cooler heads that run his show know that.  What he NEEDS is (a) to look like he tried, like, super hard and (b) a villain to cast himself against.  All of that is strictly to placate his base.  Ban, no ban, the good people of Bumf*ck East aren't going to be affected either way in a practical sense, but he promised them to get rid of the Muslims and darn if he's not trying his hardest.

Look at all the dim-wit memes that Trumpers love to share: "Never has a man been so reviled for simply trying to do what is best for the country."  Gag me with a f*cking spoon.


You're not wrong.
 
2017-06-13 03:21:54 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: SEE YOU IN COURT, COURT!


img.fark.netView Full Size


?
 
2017-06-13 03:34:41 PM  

gopher321: Farking Clown Shoes: SEE YOU IN COURT, COURT!

[img.fark.net image 183x276]

?


Why would Bud Court have a court inside of himself??  farking weird
 
2017-06-13 03:35:22 PM  
Funny, I think the federal courts said the same thing about trump

"Well, as predicted, Donald Trump did it again"
 
2017-06-13 03:37:57 PM  
He's new at this.
 
2017-06-13 03:38:11 PM  

factoryconnection: Is it too generous at this point to say that The President is throwing the game on this EO?  I know he's proud and stubborn and whatnot, but hear me out... he doesn't NEED the travel ban, and the cooler heads that run his show know that.  What he NEEDS is (a) to look like he tried, like, super hard and (b) a villain to cast himself against.  All of that is strictly to placate his base.  Ban, no ban, the good people of Bumf*ck East aren't going to be affected either way in a practical sense, but he promised them to get rid of the Muslims and darn if he's not trying his hardest.

Look at all the dim-wit memes that Trumpers love to share: "Never has a man been so reviled for simply trying to do what is best for the country."  Gag me with a f*cking spoon.


You forgot the most important part: if a terrorist attack happens on US soil it won't be his fault but the courts'.
 
2017-06-13 03:40:07 PM  

Epic Fap Session: He's new at this.


"THE REICHSTAG IS ON FIRE!!!"

"Meh, he's new at this"
 
2017-06-13 03:42:21 PM  
gpknews.comView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 03:42:39 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Epic Fap Session: He's new at this.

"THE REICHSTAG IS ON FIRE!!!"

"Meh, he's new at this"


That's no solution!
 
2017-06-13 03:43:16 PM  
"correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 03:43:41 PM  
I noticed, after saying it isn't a ban, he flat-out infinite-edly down on the "ban" by saying it in his texts, which are now part of the presidential record.

That said:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 03:43:41 PM  
If something I did caused something I wanted to happen to fail, I probably wouldn't go do that something again to complain about the failing of the something I wanted to happen.

In other words...
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 03:44:05 PM  
They needed 90 days to come up with a plan........ so what's the plan? They HAVE been working on one, haven't they?
 
2017-06-13 03:44:44 PM  

Magruda: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Epic Fap Session: He's new at this.

"THE REICHSTAG IS ON FIRE!!!"

"Meh, he's new at this"

That's no solution!


I hear Hydrochloric Acid works as a final solution
 
2017-06-13 03:45:07 PM  

shpritz: You forgot the most important part: if a terrorist attack happens on US soil it won't be his fault but the courts'.


That works into the "villain" typecasting he's projecting on the courts, plus we'll gladly cede another ream of civil rights to him if another major terrorist attack occurs.
 
2017-06-13 03:45:13 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Epic Fap Session: He's new at this.

"THE REICHSTAG IS ON FIRE!!!"

"Meh, he's new at this"


img.fark.netView Full Size


He's new at this.
 
2017-06-13 03:46:05 PM  

factoryconnection: Is it too generous at this point to say that The President is throwing the game on this EO?  I know he's proud and stubborn and whatnot, but hear me out... he doesn't NEED the travel ban, and the cooler heads that run his show know that.  What he NEEDS is (a) to look like he tried, like, super hard and (b) a villain to cast himself against.  All of that is strictly to placate his base.  Ban, no ban, the good people of Bumf*ck East aren't going to be affected either way in a practical sense, but he promised them to get rid of the Muslims and darn if he's not trying his hardest.

Look at all the dim-wit memes that Trumpers love to share: "Never has a man been so reviled for simply trying to do what is best for the country."  Gag me with a f*cking spoon.


You forget that the number one concern for Trump is always his Ego.  And he is not able to accept anyone telling him "no".
 
2017-06-13 03:46:08 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


At what point during Obama's "Immigration Suspension" was immigration suspended or ceased from the affected nations?

I'll wait.
 
2017-06-13 03:46:13 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


Research is hard.
 
2017-06-13 03:46:26 PM  

factoryconnection: Is it too generous at this point to say that The President is throwing the game on this EO?  I know he's proud and stubborn and whatnot, but hear me out... he doesn't NEED the travel ban, and the cooler heads that run his show know that.  What he NEEDS is (a) to look like he tried, like, super hard and (b) a villain to cast himself against.  All of that is strictly to placate his base.  Ban, no ban, the good people of Bumf*ck East aren't going to be affected either way in a practical sense, but he promised them to get rid of the Muslims and darn if he's not trying his hardest.

Look at all the dim-wit memes that Trumpers love to share: "Never has a man been so reviled for simply trying to do what is best for the country."  Gag me with a f*cking spoon.


I think Trump actually Believes in the travel ban, though. He may not have moral or intellectual principles as ordinary people would understand them, but he is capable of Believing very firmly in individual, isolated ideas, and if he gets rewarded enough for expressing an idea, it can become one of those.

I would include "build the wall" among his fixed ideas, by the way. It doesn't matter how ineffective it would be or how little support he now gets from the Republican Congress, he Believes in the wall and he's going to go on trying to get it built for the rest of his life.
 
2017-06-13 03:49:10 PM  

dywed88: You forget that the number one concern for Trump is always his Ego. And he is not able to accept anyone telling him "no".


That's my conflict.  The courts telling him no vs. his die-hards being egged on by his "struggle" with the "out of control courts."

It is scary that I can't really decide whether the president would be so consumed with being right that he'd ignore all the advice to simply STFU and let the courts work without him forcing their hands by blathering about the red-line wording.  Diabolical or stupid, diabolical or stupid?  Terrifying.
 
2017-06-13 03:50:10 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


Hmm I could reply to you, I could explain why you are wrong. Why the two cases are in fact completely different, but that would be a case of pearls before swine.

So this is what you get.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 03:51:35 PM  
you mispelled Predisent subby
 
2017-06-13 03:53:14 PM  
No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.
 
2017-06-13 03:54:33 PM  

Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.


Tell us more, Perry Mason.
 
2017-06-13 03:55:14 PM  

Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.


And the intention of the law.
 
2017-06-13 03:55:31 PM  

Antidamascus: They needed 90 days to come up with a plan........ so what's the plan? They HAVE been working on one, haven't they?


Exactly. The ban would have ALREADY BEEN OVER by now and his new amazing plan should already be implemented.

So what the fark is it?

There was never any idea of creating a plan. The idea was to ban Muslims, scapegoat them further, indefinitely. The reason is because the Executive branch is headed by a bunch of racist bigoted assholes who desperately want to reenact fascism.
 
2017-06-13 03:56:55 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.

Tell us more, Perry Mason.


The explicit and public statements of intent of a President have no business being used to characterize the intent of an Executive Order.  Why would the President's stated plans for his EOs have any bearing on the President's EOs' meaning?  I mean that's just silly, you kooky Federal Justices.
 
2017-06-13 03:57:47 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


Thanks for confirming it's all about racism, so far as Trumpers care.
 
2017-06-13 04:00:04 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


Because: A) Obama didn't walk around talking like Drunk Uncle at a Klan Rally BEFORE he took his action  B) his action merely added layer of verification  when people presented official papers from places where the government had broken down like, say the ISIS controlled towns in Syria and Iraq C)his action did not affect legal permanent residents of citizens of the US.


But hey I know nuance is hard and BSAB  is pretty much the last arrow in your quiver no matter how warped and broken it's become, so...you tried...
 
2017-06-13 04:00:37 PM  

Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 04:03:19 PM  

Esc7: Antidamascus: They needed 90 days to come up with a plan........ so what's the plan? They HAVE been working on one, haven't they?

Exactly. The ban would have ALREADY BEEN OVER by now and his new amazing plan should already be implemented.

So what the fark is it?

There was never any idea of creating a plan. The idea was to ban Muslims, scapegoat them further, indefinitely. The reason is because the Executive branch is headed by a bunch of racist bigoted assholes who desperately want to reenact fascism.


Exactly. "See, NO ATTACKS! Ban works!"
 
2017-06-13 04:03:27 PM  

factoryconnection: shpritz: You forgot the most important part: if a terrorist attack happens on US soil it won't be his fault but the courts'.

That works into the "villain" typecasting he's projecting on the courts, plus we'll gladly cede another ream of civil rights to him if another major terrorist attack occurs.


I think the last set of tweets where he made sure his appeal will fail was intentional. He's surely been told that the travel ban won't really prevent terrorist attacks, so this way the base can keep on believing it's a good idea and it won't be proved wrong by an attack. Instead, like you said, they can point at the courts and say this shows that their power needs to be curtailed. That sounds like a plan that Bannon would come up with.
 
2017-06-13 04:03:44 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


Serious question:

Do you honestly think that this is an accurate comparison or do you understand that it is bullshiat and put it forward anyway because it supports your worldview?
 
2017-06-13 04:09:18 PM  

shpritz: That sounds like a plan that Bannon would come up with.


It just seems like such plainly obvious sabotage of his own case... so someone's playing the long game and Bannon seems like the only one there that does.
 
2017-06-13 04:12:27 PM  
If you know it's going to fail, but do it anyway, doesn't that make you, you know...stupid?

Yes, yes it does.
 
2017-06-13 04:12:39 PM  

Magorn: vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]

Because: A) Obama didn't walk around talking like Drunk Uncle at a Klan Rally BEFORE he took his action  B) his action merely added layer of verification  when people presented official papers from places where the government had broken down like, say the ISIS controlled towns in Syria and Iraq C)his action did not affect legal permanent residents of citizens of the US.


But hey I know nuance is hard and BSAB  is pretty much the last arrow in your quiver no matter how warped and broken it's become, so...you tried...


Good Effort!! A+ 10/10
but you may as well be talking to a wall.

Or ask the scorpion not to sting you while you bring it across the river.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-06-13 04:14:49 PM  
factoryconnection:
It just seems like such plainly obvious sabotage of his own case... so someone's playing the long game and Bannon seems like the only one there that does.

And that's really farking scary.
 
2017-06-13 04:23:47 PM  

Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.


**A BRIEF HISTORY OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW**

Constitution: "New rule: Discrimination is not OK any more."
Right: "OK. On an unrelated note, here are some new laws about voting and housing and all sorts of other stuff."
Left: "Hey. These laws are going to have discriminatory effects. Just read 'em."
Right: "No, you can't just look at the effects. There has to be discriminatory intent."
Courts: "Yeah. Gotta have intent."
Left: "That's gonna make it harder. People don't usually publicly announce they intend to violate constitutional protections."
Courts: "Not our problem."
Right: "Good luck suckers. Like we're actually going to ever be so dumb as to say--"

*TIME PASSES*

Trump: "--I'm gonna violate constitutional protections on purpose."
Left: "Yo, get a load of this statement of intent."
Courts: "Yep. Not good. Blocked."
Right: "Whoa whoa whoa. What's all this about intent?! Sounds like liberal fake lies to me!"
 
2017-06-13 04:33:18 PM  
Is this EO being held up in anyway preventing the supposed implantation of the "extreme vetting" that it was supposed to follow the cooling off the ban was supposed to give the admin?

Is it like his taxes that can't be reveled because of a supposed audit?
 
2017-06-13 04:35:21 PM  
Seeing as how the 9th circuit has more rulings overturned than any other in the union I'm pretty sure that's not what "it" is.
 
2017-06-13 04:37:30 PM  

vonster: "correctly interpreted the law and Constitution in accordance with established principles and precedent"

[img.fark.net image 500x500]


I know you know this, because you've been around here since 2006, apparently, and I doubt you took a sabbatical back in January and completely isolated yourself from any form of news of commentary, but I'm just gonna leave this here anyway.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald​-​trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
 
2017-06-13 04:42:17 PM  

JDAT: Seeing as how the 9th circuit has more rulings overturned than any other in the union I'm pretty sure that's not what "it" is.


Since 1999, 107 9th-Circuit decisions have been reversed by SCOTUS.

107 out of 114,000 decisions.  http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/
 
2017-06-13 04:50:29 PM  

Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.


The intent of the authority promulgating the rule or law is fair game when it comes to the interpretation of the same. With Congress that can be tricky since there are any number of individuals who may have had a role in crafting legislation. For the President it's simple - what has the president recently said on the matter, and does the order in question substantially follow the spirit of those previous utterances?
 
2017-06-13 04:52:11 PM  

NateAsbestos: Warlordtrooper: No they didn't, in fact if they even quoted his tweets.

A courts job is to interpret the text of the law regarding the Constitution, not the presidents tweets.

And the intention of the law.


And also the effect of the law. A law can be written in such a way that it meets the burden of legality/constitutionality, but if it is implemented in such a way as to negate the rights of any or all Americans contrary to the Constitution, it's still illegal even if the language is legal on its face.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report