I thought that had been established. Is it now claimed this indicates it is constitutional to discriminate by relig?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @AndyMeanie
Non-citizens don't get constitutional protections and never have so why would it apply to them in the first place?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zacnaloen @AndyMeanie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/experts-trumps-muslim-entry-ban-idea-ridiculous-unconsitutional/2015/12/07/d44a970a-9d47-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.8d16e2eec036 … http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428198/muslim-immigration-ban-and-constitution-jim-geraghty …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AndyMeanie
As I said, until tested in court it's all opinion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zacnaloen @AndyMeanie
Obv, it will need to be argued out by constitutional lawyers but Trump's backtrack matches current consensus.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AndyMeanie
Chris Baker Retweeted Mark Humphrys
FTR Option 4 is in my opinion probably the best balance of options and Trump failed on thishttps://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/825324673902714880 …
Chris Baker added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zacnaloen @AndyMeanie
I'd go somewhere between 3 & 4 as publicly opposing Islamism wld get a Pakistani atheist friend of mine killed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AndyMeanie
Well, publically a bad idea. do it in in private in the interview and explain that would get you killed otherwise
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zacnaloen @AndyMeanie
Easily done. I'm sure jihadists would do this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AndyMeanie
That's what the social media etc reviews are about as well. Inconsistencies would be questioned
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Individual assessments are what I favour.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.