SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 11:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: We, the collective we, seem to have lost that.  We are so eager to paint someone as evil that we run right to that rather than argue how the policy is good or bad.  In this particular case everyone is trying so hard to paint Trump as a racist or bigot, they ignore the argument against the ban based on its merits.  

I agree, I also don't think it's going be very effective in regards to its stated purpose.  However, if I can borrow a phrase from the Parkland kids, if it saves just one life it's worth it.  Or maybe "if it saves one life" isn't valid justification for curtailing the liberty of others?  It appears the liberty in question provides the justification for many.

(06-27-2018, 12:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: My argument is I don't mind the ban if it makes us safer. Not stopping those who come in to our country from those countries that have attacked us seems counterproductive. That's my only point. ISIS has taken responsibility for random acts against us mostly by AMERICANS who may sympathize with them in some cases, and in most they are just claiming responsibility after the fact, but had nothing to do with the planning or supporting of these attackers from within.

I support a ban against immigration from those countries that have attacked us. You are advocating more bans since you are trying to prevent an attack, which means everyone should be banned. Because you never know.

Part of your problem when you respond to me is you respond to what you want me to have said, rather than what I actually said.  I didn't advocate for this ban, much less "more bans".  Kindly reread my posts and feel free to try again.