Matt, if the travel ban was truly based on national security, then I’d agree. Given Saudi Arabia funded most 9/11 terrorists, why isn’t SA included in ban? Too many times Trump’s desire to “ban Muslims” was explicit. Lawyers ‘doctored’ language but a rose by any other name...
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Kennedy’s concurrence in NIFLA is outstanding, especially the last few sentences.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I still have a problem with the travel ban ruling. If a president stated he wanted to punish Mormons, then signed an executive order that singled out the state of Utah, how would that not be religious discrimination?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Decisions based on law rather than ideology are such a bitch for ideologues to swallow. That was part of the idea behind creating the Judicial Branch in the first place.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Too many people seem to not understand the difference between disagreeing with a policy but agreeing with the legal structure that allowed that policy to be made. The travel ban decision falls with the latter. Agreeing with SCOTUS decision is not an endorsement of the policy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have to read the travel ban decision, but the 'ban' that went to S.Ct. was Trump's 3rd try and was watered down quite a bit, notwithstanding his constant racist remarks. And that might be the worse aspect of the decision: he's free to keep up the offensive tweets w/impunity
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s because you’re a right wing Republican. Just read as “moderate” in comparison to straight up fascists like Trump.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Giving more power to the president, and more law based on fundamentalist religious nonsense: 0-2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In both cases, it’s religious preference masquerading as keeping Americans safe.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Of course you like both decisions, they don't impact you at all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, would respectfully disagree with you on the that
@mattklewis Only Supports Trump and S.Miller IslamophobiaThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not controversial. It's partisan bias.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If this decision had come down under a different admin I would agree. But Trump has made his feelings on minorities very clear which makes me dread what’s to come. I fear he will feel empowered to use this decision to further divide the country and ultimately not safer at all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I do agree.
@scotus didn’t decide that Trump’s Muslim van was right, or good. They only said that it was within his powers as POTUS.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.