PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP
whitehouse.gov
donaldjtrump.com
promiseskept.com
>b-but Trump hasnt done anything!
pastebin.com
pastebin.com
PREV APPEARANCES/LINKS pastebin.com
DAILY SCHEDULE (WH Press Corps) publicpool.kinja.com
TrumpTV Weekly Updates: pastebin.com
NEWTRUMP NIGHTLY NEWS pastebin.com
NEW APPEARANCES
>Pres Trump MAGA Rally for SC Gov McMaster 6/25/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump departs for SC 6/25/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump/FLotUS Melania meet w/Jordan King/Queen 6/25/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump welcomes Jordan King Abdullah II 6/25/18
youtu.be
>DefSec C.H.A.O.S. Mattis presser in Alaska 6/25/18
youtu.be
>Pentagon Roundtable on MoH Surviving Family 6/25/18
defense.gov
>AG Sessions @School Safety Conf in NV 6/25/18
youtu.be
>WH Press Brief (Sarah) 6/25/18
youtu.be
>FLotUS Melania Opens SADD Conference 6/24/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump Weekly Address #55 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump on Huckabee 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump returns to WH 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump arrives in DC 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump @Nevada GOP Convention 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump Roundtable on Tax Reform in Vegas 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump arrives in Vegas 6/23/18
youtu.be
>Pres Trump departs DC 6/23/28
youtu.be
>Pres Trump departs WH 6/23/18
youtu.be
>VP Pence Stumps For Rothfus in Pittsburgh PA 6/23/18
youtu.be
OP pastebin: pastebin.com
prev
/ptg/ PRESIDENT TRUMP GENERAL - HAWAIIAN JUDGE BTFO! EDITION
Other urls found in this thread:
supremecourt.gov
twitter.com
MAGA!
IS REDDIT TAKING THE STREETS!?
you misspelled MIGA, shill
Let's not forget, in some ways, the lower courts already won.
They forced Trump to water it down twice and now that order was never examined by SCOTUS.
Today, underscores the need to take immigration away from the lower courts
I KNOW YOU'RE SCARED DRUMPFIES
Apologize to Mitch McConnell right now
NOT A FUCKING JOKE
LIBERALS JUSTICES INVOKED THE CASE REGARDING JAPANESE INTERMENT CAMPS IN THEIR DISSENT
>LITERAL TUMBLR ARGUMENTS
NO THJIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING
FUCK JUDGES
THIS ISN'T HOW IT OUGHT TO WORK
The waiver is a sham. They deny everyone by default. There's no national security reason for banning people from Iran.
NO NO NO NO THIS CANT BE HAPPENING
WE CANT LET DRUMPF WIN
THE SC DECISION NEEDS TO BE APPEALED!!!
"ACLU" now means "Arab Cock Lover's Union" apparently.
none of the terrorist countries ar eon the ban list because Drumph was afraid to offend them
Drumpf cucked... he's not prosecuting illegals anymore.
scene outside SCOTUS right now
IMPEACH SCOTUS NOW
MUELLER HURRY
THE BANTS
WHAT IF THE SCOTUS HAD A SILENCER?!
>appealing a Supreme court decision
Thank You Long Dong Silver
I REQUIRE SALT FOR BREAKFAST THIS MORNING
Here's the opinion in Trump v. Hawaii
supremecourt.gov
Travel ban, per Roberts. Reversed and remanded. Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan. Sotokmayor dissents, joined by Ginsburgtg.
1. Court says that the language of the INA is "clear," and "the Proclmation does not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority."
2. Court says Proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA."
3. Addresses the issue of the president's statements on excluding Muslims from the US. Says "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility."
4. Court says that it will look beyond the face of the Proclmation to consider the plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence about the president's motivations, "but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasaonlby be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
5. Says the proclmation is based on legistimate purposes, without saying anything about religion. Proclamation is result of a "worldwidereview process" by multiple cabinet agencies. Notes taht it doesn't apply to Iraq, "one of the largest predominately Mulsim countries in teh region."
6. "under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today tat plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim."
7. Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."
Turtle man unleashed.
NO MUSLIM BAN EVER
HAHAHAHAHA GET FUCKED
They could probably use the fresh air and exercise.
the decision to not ban most terrorists only a few because our weak president didnt want to offend the arab nations?
lol you need a banan-republic style dictatorship
it is coming, one way or another
Stealing that Supreme Court appointment worked well for the GOP =/
so i don't understand. does this mean that JUST THIS BAN is ok, or trump can ban whenever?
smug as fuck
I love it
DOES THIS GIVE TRUMP PRECEDENCE TO BAN ANY COUNTRIES HE WANTS???
also, plebbit is not taking this well
8. Our disposition of the case," the court concludes, "makes it unnecessary to consider the propriety of the nationwide scope of the injunction issued by the District Court."
9. Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
> Muslim Ban upheld
So I can't travel to the US anymore?
*braps @ u*
>president scrumpf
funnily enough isn't the japanese internment something that could be used as precedence
welcome to the 3rd world amerimutts
The spic and those 3 Jews need to go.
He's an Atlantic editor
Its unironically over. Slumpf cannot win in 2020.
FUCK YOU BLACKPILL FAGGOTS
WE WON
Their arguement was MUH consentration camps and MUH first amendment for non-citizens
Utterly garbage dissent
Read the ruling.
Why do those 5 guys look respectable while the 4 other judges looks to be unhealthy beaners and kikes? How is it so easy to wear your personalities on the outaide, even when you're all wearing the same garments?
or Ashkenazis, Communists, Losers, and Untermensch
LOL
Dissent tried the muh concentration camps argument and got btfo
SALT
GIVE ME SALT, I NEED SALT
Thomas once again, with the categorical approach:
>" Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President.
Thomas then goes after the growing trend of nationwide injunctions:
>"District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief."
>"These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system"
>myriad
>doesnt list any of it
REBBIT EVERYONE
Based Judge Giganigga
>slept late and just saw the ruling
Who's got salt? I need some of those liberal tears
RULE OF LAW
U
L
E
O
F
L
A
W
Yes and Almo will give him more than enough reasoning to.
>"I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions."
Gorsuch in the middle...kek he's enemy #1
RIGHTS
versus
PRIVILEGES
99% of blackpillers on this board are just the one jewish expat sub 90 IQ finnshill
>if dems have a lock on everything in 2020
>The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.
5-4. CUT AND DRY. FUCK OBAMA.
Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address.
It's subtext is pretty close to the surface, and seems designed to chastise the Executive while agreeing with the majority that there was not anything the Court could do about it.
WOW
tl:dr
>DOES THIS GIVE TRUMP PRECEDENCE TO BAN ANY COUNTRIES HE WANTS???
IT SHOULD !
CENTRAL AMERICA BAN WHEN?????
PLOSE HORRY MOOLER
AWOO~
>176511789
>When the SCOTUS strikes you down, you win
>" Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President.
TRUMP CAN BAN MEXICANS AND AUTO-DEPORT THEM BACK WHEN THEY CROSS THE BORDER
As a consolidation, the Trump administration may soon be removing the North Korea travel ban.
More 5-4 shit when this should have been 7-2 at worst. Never surrender SCOTUS, it's too important.
>Dems pushed their retardedness to the point to where SCOTUS played Captain Obvious and just basically says 'Yep, the President has that kind of authority '
Liberals are children
>Sotokmayor dissents, joined by Ginsburgtg.
The Dynamic Duo strikes again.
Do these bitches disagree on anything ever?
>be media
>start massive coordinated attack on Trump
>attack him nonstop for a few days
>he makes a counterargument, signs something, or achieves something that BTFOs the narrative
>refuse to acknowledge this anal destruction but issue whimpers out at that point anyway
>make a few final passive aggressive articles about why you won the exchange
>repeat this cycle every other week
AHAHAHA
>Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
You Nazis are going to bring back concentration camps and Merrick Garland could have saved us from this Drumpfian hellscape!
>Not letting people in is the same as putting people in camps
FOREIGNERS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.
How fucking dense are liberals not to understand this basic fact?
Today's opinion confirmed that it was unconstitutional, so no.
BASED GORSUCH SAVING AMERICA
>still trying to push this
>they're being deported immediately you salty shill
Don't celebrate too soon, Drumpfkins.
>so i don't understand. does this mean that JUST THIS BAN is ok, or trump can ban whenever?
It said he has clear statutory authority to do bans.
>still trying to push this
They're being deported immediately you salty shill
THIS
I AM A REVERSE-SLUG
I NEED SALT TO LIVE
They are literally never going to stop crying about this, will they?
just wait until they start croakin and dying to old age and he puts in 1-3 more judges in SC
ALWAYS LISTEN TO MITCH
ALWAYS DO WHAT MITCH SAYS
Press F to pay respects to the turtleman.
FFFFFFFFFFF
Just
and soon RBG will die and Kennedy will retire.
My problem with mitch isn't so much what he's doing under Trump's supervision, it's been fine albeit slow, but thats the senate. The problem is that without Trump Mitch was ready to give it all away on immigration for a shit deal.
>It's a really troubling time," the host adds. "I think the best news is this country's institutions have proven to be pretty resilient. The courts have stood up to him. Congress has even stood up to him. I'm glad to hear Mitch McConnell is calling Reince Priebus and saying [the] president is being absolutely idiotic by the way he's handling things. He's tried to get health care through by intimidating Congress. I tried warning him a year ago when he was saying, 'Paul Ryan better do what I say or else he’s gonna be in trouble.' I said no, no, no, Donald - it doesn't work that way.' I said every President goes in thinking that they’re the person that's unlocked the secrets to Washington, D.C. and they learn pretty quickly that they're checked by Congress, by the courts, the bureaucracy, the intelligence community. Don't declare war on everybody out there – or everyone will declare war against you.' And it never ends well. And it's not going to.
ITS OVER
Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address.
>Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address.
Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address.
>Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address.
it's over, folks
Sad!