"nothing but net" is a basketball reference to a perfect shot that goes through the goal without touching the metal rim or bouncing around before dropping through.
Indeed. They haven't ruled it constitutional yet, but with the makeup of the court, with how they're behaving now, it won't be that way much longer.
Pervert. nothing but net Nothing but net is the name of an entire category of some of the most intimate sexual positions. The criteria that a sexual position must meet in order to be considered part of the nothing but net category is rigidly defined as any position such that only genitals are touching. Paying homage to its namesake, it is considered top form to make a "swish" soundat the outset of a nothing but net position. Neglecting to "swish" at adequate volume greatly increases risk of penile fracture. For a couple containing a male that is not well endowed, it is likely that only limited exploration of the nothing but net category will take place due to anatomical restrictions only permitting a just the tip (or JT squared) scenario.
It never went into place to begin with. They have to halt the immigration in order to overhaul the system. *clutches pearls*
Right, but haven't they had more than enough time to overhaul the system, regardless of halting immigration? Originally they thought it would take 3 months to overhaul with the travel ban in place. In the mean time, it's been 9 months since the initial travel ban. What exactly have they been doing? Or have they just been sitting around doing nothing? *he asks, already knowing the answer*
If you have to shut the system down to overhaul it, you can't overhaul it until the system is shut down.
But it's not shutting down the whole system. It's not banning immigration entirely for 90 days. That would be ludicrous. It's not a computer or car; it's a system we can figure out fixes for while it's still simultaneously running. It's not an either or type deal.
A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled against the third iteration of President Trump's travel ban, saying it goes against federal law. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366268-9th-circuit-rules-against-trumps-third-travel-ban lol so much winning
They should just follow the Democrats' example of taking 9 seconds to overhaul the system by calling everyone racists and sticking their heads in the sand. Representative governing at its finest!
Non-citizens can have their temperary status revoked at any time for just about any reason. Perminent legal residents are different though.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...deral-prisons-are-illegal-immigrants.amp.html Now, with illegals about 1/5th of everyone doing federal time in this country is an illegal. There has also been a lot of recent evidence that the old claim that "illegals commit fewer crimes than native born" is also a lie. It comes from some states and cities deliberately not reporting it.
So SCotUS has ruled that the President does have the constitutional authority to block travel from countries which do not conform to the criteria he specifies. This was always pretty obviously going to be the default ruling as everyone in the reality based community knew.
You guys just keep doing your best to piss off the planet and alienate pretty much everyone. What happened to you, America?
Hardly surprising when you have a Supreme Court made up of partisan appointments. It speaks volumes that the lower courts all went against the ban.
The thing that annoyed me about people wanting the ban overruled was that they wanted it based in large part on statements President Trump had made or tweeted saying they went to "motivation". To me it would set a very dangerous precedent to have presidential actions interpreted based on simply things he said in the past rather than the actual text of executive orders or legislation. It is bad to conflate and equate campaign hyperbole or other public rabble rousing with actual policy.
Oh shut up. I can’t see how none of you idiots on this board can see that the ban was in place because the countries banned were unable to furnish any reliable information about the people who wanted to travel to America. That the ban was temporary. That the ban only applied to seven countries. That the ban only affected 8% of the worlds Muslim population so it would be a lie to say it was a religious ban. Oh and of course you all squawk about the ban but had ZERO problem with the ban when Obama did it. In fact the countries that were banned were the ones that Obama’s own people decided should be banned. Clearly all of you doing the same thing you all accuse the right of doing which is changing your stance on an issue based on whose dealing with the issue currently. And Congress was very clear several decades ago that POTUS had the legal right by federal law to control who came into the country as visitors.
Except the lower courts didn't all go against the ban, my ignorant friend. Why do you think SCotUS picked the case up in the first place? Because various lower courts came to contradictory rulings.
...because the lower courts are somehow magically "not partisan"? Or perhaps because when there are so many lower courts, you can always go shopping for one that is reliably partisan in your favor? Funny how there's always so much interest in Islamic immigration in Hawaii, don't you think?
