This is a pleasant surprise.


The Supreme Court could rule within days on whether to lift a temporary stay on President Trump's revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

The issue has become a major test of presidential power, especially in the area of immigration. At issue is whether the ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.

The Justice Department filed the ruling request with the justices late Thursday, also asking that the federal policy be enforced while the larger issues are litigated.

A federal appeals court in Virginia last month ruled against Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

The Trump administration said that ruling was flawed on several legal fronts, and asserted the president's broad authority over immigration matters.

But groups opposing the ban were confident the Supreme Court would eventually side with them and lower courts to strike down the executive order.

There was no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court would issue a final ruling in the case.

Two federal appeals courts had been considering the issue. A ruling from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit is still pending, but the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

This is the White House's second effort to impose a travel ban. An order issued a week after President Trump took office was also quickly blocked from taking effect. Nationwide protests were held in many cities and airports.

Rather than continue defending that executive action in the courts, the administration issued its revised order March 6, which included removing Iraq from the original list of banned countries. It also lifted the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, many fleeing a years-long civil war there.

Officials say the new executive order only applied to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

The appeals court took the president to task for what he said about a travel ban-- both before and after he took office.

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an "executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

A major sticking point for the justices will be navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents including Carter, Reagan and Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

A 1952 federal law-- the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence-- gives the chief executive broad authority.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...y-on-travel-ban.html

The mental gymnastics involved in order to call this a muslim ban confound me. Muslims from India are not banned, yet Christians from Syria are. That alone proves it is not a ban based on religious faith.

Why is this so hard? Or was I let out of the re-education camp too soon?

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

...kakapath...

Say what?

given the wide adoption of the term 'kakaocracy' there must be some native citizens of the domain spreading their essential points of such a social fabric:

"Word Origin and History for kakistocracy
n.

1829, "government by the worst element of a society," coined on analogy of its opposite, aristocracy, from Greek kakistos "worst," superlative of kakos "bad" (which perhaps is related to the general IE word for "defecate;" see caco- ) + -cracy.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source "

Since 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' already have IDPT codes assigned to define the nuances of their differences from normal social behavior, it is my impression that one supporting the kakistocracy can well be termed 'kakapaths'.

Your back-formation does not work, unfortunately.

The -path suffix denotes, generally, that someone suffers from something: so a sociopath suffers with respect to their interaction with society and a psychopath suffers with respect to their mind. Alternately it could be a skill one has, usually medical (e.g. osteopath).

A kakapath would "suffer the nasty people", although in that form, more probably "suffer shit" (kakistopath being more your intention, I'd guess).

What I assume you mean would simply be expressed best with the Greek itself kakoi, "the nasty folk" in the same vein as hoi polloi is used of the rabble.

Please be real....Please be real

"What house is he in again?"
Twist the knife, Junior!

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Please be real....Please be real

Looks real to me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.67d2da9606df

Chris

I've seen it around, FOX had a story on it too.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

She's a total train wreck.
"Trump is a bully?"

You did this and brought it down on yourself, you stupid redhead D listed twunt.

Careers have been wreck for less ... yours is still in the gurgler.

quote:

a sociopath suffers with respect to their interaction with society and a psychopath suffers with respect to their mind

appreciate your interpretation; however you deviate from the definitions that neither 'sociopath' nor 'psychopath' seem to suffer subjectively for their affiliation & distortion of otherwise normal behavior no matter how perverse their actions; no remorse about their actions.

I propose 'kakapaths' are agent provocateurs infested with some form of behavioral Tourettes and moral autism spreading their distortions & non-empathetic concepts around believing they should be praised for such clever public proclamations.

This post is not an example of such, rather an identification of the species that occupies ever greater part of the public attention.

Wow, Junior dropped the mic on that one...

quote:

Originally posted by cjevans:

Careers have been wreck for less ... yours is still in the gurgler.

Considering the industry she is in, IMO she has upgraded herself from a no-nothing 56 yo bim has-been to the darling of the commies. She's milking this to the extreme, and some leftist Hollywood entity will hire her for something. She basically re-invented her career, now as an anti-Trump provocateur; a job beneath that of a common prostitute.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
..a job beneath that of a common prostitute.

In france, after WWII, they would shave her head so everyone would know her shame.

^^^

Someone can take a dump on the ground, and everyone knows what it is.

Another comes along, covers it with gold leaf, calls it art, and then it has a following.

But it is still shit and those who still recognize it for what it is, their opinion is relevant. Those who celebrate the art, no one that matters, cares.

Fork her. She's done.

Gold leaf and all.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
The mental gymnastics involved in order to call this a muslim ban confound me. Muslims from India are not banned, yet Christians from Syria are. That alone proves it is not a ban based on religious faith.

Why is this so hard? Or was I let out of the re-education camp too soon?

It's not mental gymnastics. It is checking the boxes. They can't very well say that DJT is undoing everything the commies worked for, and they want it stopped. So, they have to check the leftist heartstring boxes. Intolerance? Check. Discrimination? Check. Bigotry? Check. Opponents watch too much Foxnews? Check.

They use the same tactics day in and out. Each election the "war on seniors" comes out. The "women make 73 cents of each dollar a man makes discrimination even though we have been in power for the last eight years and did zero to correct the false problem". They are just checking boxes to pull on heart strings for support. Because their stance won't stand on its own.

quote:

mental gymnastics

Here's a wild guess.

The Supreme Court decision will be 5-4.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

mental gymnastics

Here's a wild guess.

The Supreme Court decision will be 5-4.

There are two responses to this comment. The first is:

You have more faith in Justice Kennedy than I do.

The second response is:

I like to think it will be better than 5-4. The applicable legal principles are so clear and basic here. I can't imagine Breyer or Kagen upholding the lower courts. Even Ginsburg should have trouble doing that. The only one who I would not be surprised to see upholding the lower court would be Sotomayor - because she is a pure progressive ideologue.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by cjevans:

Careers have been wreck for less ... yours is still in the gurgler.

Considering the industry she is in, IMO she has upgraded herself from a no-nothing 56 yo bim has-been to the darling of the commies. She's milking this to the extreme, and some leftist Hollywood entity will hire her for something. She basically re-invented her career, now as an anti-Trump provocateur; a job beneath that of a common prostitute.

Trump has a strong stomach and can take it. I feel worse for his family.

But upon seeing this, I really felt sorry for the Berg family and other families for whom this picture must have resurfaced some real tragic thoughts and feelings.

For that alone, I could never forgive this stupid twat for what she did.

My favorite "shitting" analogy is "pink twinkies".

Try it sometime it gets peoples attention. "That was close! John Boy was shitting pink twinkles!"

Or "Trump just cancelled the Paris Accord! The left is shitting pink twinkies!"

I dunno, works for me. Makes me chortle.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

mental gymnastics

Here's a wild guess.

The Supreme Court decision will be 5-4.

There are two responses to this comment. The first is:

You have more faith in Justice Kennedy than I do.

The second response is:

I like to think it will be better than 5-4. The applicable legal principles are so clear and basic here. I can't imagine Breyer or Kagen upholding the lower courts. Even Ginsburg should have trouble doing that. The only one who I would not be surprised to see upholding the lower court would be Sotomayor - because she is a pure progressive ideologue.

I'm with you on this--I think SCOTUS will be 7-2 to judge the ban Constitutional.

flashguy