quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Religious institutions already avoid a gozillion dollars in taxes each and every year, the loss of which is made up by everyone else who pays taxes - in what is an absurd and thinly veiled end around. The idea that they receive any tax money in the literal sense is doubly wrong.

Want to have a religious school? Fine. Want to send your kids there? Fine. Want tax dollars (even beyond those unpaid) to pay for it? No way, not even for a lowly playground surface.

Want to mayyyyyyybe consider such things? Require all such institutions to start paying the same taxes everyone else pays, immediately, and irrevocably, for perpetuity.

It's shameful to even ask.

I respect you, 46and2, but you are overreacting. There are plenty of strong schools, at all levels, that were founded by religious organizations. Just because an educational institution is founded/run by people of faith, it should not be singled out by the government and/or deny lower income people access to it. This is counter to our founding and exactly why the founding fathers created the establishment clause.



.

Quite the contrary, every one of the lower court justices is proud of their decisions against Trump.

They revel in the fact they "stopped Trump" even if temporary, it doesn't matter to them what the law says in this situation and what is scary is that a justice, appointed to uphold and adjudicate cases based on the law allows personal preference to over ride the correct decision.

They should be personally responsible for the costs of getting the decision corrected, but they are part of the club, lawyers, judges, politicians and until they commit a crime in front of a television remain above reproach.

It is our system, it's pretty good, better than the rest of the world courts... it's a shame that as many Justices below SCOTUS clearly ruled for political purposes, not legal purposes is exposed, especially when you get a full vote from SCOTUS against their actions....

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

It was a very practical partial dissent found at page 14 of 16 of the PDF found Here.

The key statement the dissent made:

quote:

The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now — unanimously — found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Napolitano just said on Fox Business that this was a UNANIMOUS DECISION.

Even the left-wingers can't ignore what the law says. It probably pained them to have to do it. The whole thing was based on emotion and what Trump said as a candidate, not facts.

If one reads the actual law, and recognizes that persons who have no established relationship with the US aren't covered by our Constitution (setting foot on our soil does establish a relationship), I think that it would be within the purview of the law to actually ban Muslims. They constitute a "class" of persons who could be considered a risk to national security. It won't happen, of course, because current thinking won't allow discriminating by religion, but one should note that back in the 1800s there was a ban on Muslims.

flashguy

The tide is turning, can you feel it?
Big League.

This is me today:

I am still wondering about collusion on what? Has anyone, any agency, produced any evidence, of any kind, that Russia interfered in our election? Where are the Emperor's clothes?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
"Collusion" was a dud, and now-- God bless their stubborn stupidity-- they are carrying on about "obstruction." That would be, you know, obstruction of the investigation of the non-collusion. :roll eyes

It's tough to keep up with the Democrats outrage, but I thought they started with obstruction, and now they are on collusion.

quote:

I am still wondering about collusion on what? Has anyone, any agency, produced any evidence, of any kind, that Russia interfered in our election? Where are the Emperor's clothes?

They know it's there, they just haven't found it yet. If only they had his tax returns, or could dig for it somewhere else they haven't dug.

" The whole thing was based on emotion and what Trump said as a candidate, not facts. "

isn't that what Comey did on HRC? Ignore facts & insert "intent" as qualifier?

And pardon if I'm missing something here, doesn't it seem as if the Hounds of Congressional Investigation are beginning to sniff around such as AG Lynch and other bho toadies???

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I am still wondering about collusion on what? Has anyone, any agency, produced any evidence, of any kind, that Russia interfered in our election? Where are the Emperor's clothes?

They know it's there, they just haven't found it yet. If only they had his tax returns, or could dig for it somewhere else they haven't dug.

Like Captain Queeg knew someone had stolen his strawberries.





.

Harvard-Harris Poll shows 64% of Americans want to move on from the Russian witch hunt. This is huge:

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...ary-of-russia-probes



.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Dead men don't complain.
I think that's the premise behind Obamacare to begin with.

Yes, because dead men can vote Democrat.



.

quote:

Harvard-Harris Poll shows 64% of Americans want to move on from the Russian witch hunt.

Just about everything the liberals obsess about is projection.

I'm not ready to move on. I'd like to see how the Democrats were in bed with the Russians. They've squealed about it too much for them to have clean hands. Let's see it.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
I am still wondering about collusion on what? Has anyone, any agency, produced any evidence, of any kind, that Russia interfered in our election?

There are substantiated(?) claims that Russian hackers were the ones who got into the Podesta-Wankerwoman-DNC email and released the contents via Wikileaks.

That is the ONLY interference found - releasing damning communications that, among other things, DNC leadership admit to stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders, disparaging half the American people, and subverting the media into becoming the lap dogs of the camp supporting Felonia von Pantsuit.

There is ZERO evidence the Russians actually hacked voting machines and changed votes.

The fact is the left-wing of the Democratic Party cannot bring themselves to admit their self-anointed Empress Felonia von Pantsuit and her gang of kleptocrats suffered from terminal hubris.

I'll freely admit that I was a little skeptical about how the Supreme Court was going to rule. Given recent rulings I wasn't sure. However I am very happy with the decision, and full consent of the court.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
There are substantiated(?) claims that Russian hackers were the ones who got into the Podesta-Wankerwoman-DNC email and released the contents via Wikileaks.

Where is that substantiation? Julian Assange has said, repeatedly, that the information did not come from Russian sources. He also intimated that it was a DNC internal leak to him from an employee. Assange may not be a sterling individual, but he is a genius where computer hacking is concerned. He doesn't need help from Russia, and I cannot imagine why he would need to lie about it.

I'd like to see any democrats that promulgated lies and falsehoods designed solely to undermine the president and his agenda be brought up on charges of sedition and misuse of public funds

time to throw some of the bastards in jail for their contemptible actions

they don't get free rides because they're politicians - that only makes them a lower class of thug

From SCOTUS - possible big hit to the refugee resettlement industry:

quote:

§2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to
immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from
the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then
secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
There are substantiated(?) claims that Russian hackers were the ones who got into the Podesta-Wankerwoman-DNC email and released the contents via Wikileaks.

Where is that substantiation? Julian Assange has said, repeatedly, that the information did not come from Russian sources. He also intimated that it was a DNC internal leak to him from an employee. Assange may not be a sterling individual, but he is a genius where computer hacking is concerned. He doesn't need help from Russia, and I cannot imagine why he would need to lie about it.

Seth Rich

look at the Fox News website - two wins for the president on the title page

the first was the travel ban but also the comment by Thomas and Gorsuch that the court screwed the pooch on the 2nd Amendment case