Slashdot Mirror
Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch To Supreme Court (washingtonpost.com)
halfEvilTech quotes a report from Washington Post: The U.S. Senate confirmed Neil M. Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. On a vote of 54 to 45, senators confirmed Gorsuch, 49, a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He will become the 113th person to serve on the Supreme Court and is scheduled to be sworn in Monday. Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the power of his position to change the rules of the Senate to lower the threshold on Supreme Court nominations to end debate from 60 to 51 votes. Therefore, "all presidential nominees for executive branch positions and the federal courts need only a simple majority vote to be confirmed by senators," reports Washington Post.
It is unclear as to what exactly Gorsuch's confirmation means for the tech industry. However, it is certain that Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises, from copyright and privacy to intellectual property rights and data storage," writes Issie Lapowsky via Wired.
It is unclear as to what exactly Gorsuch's confirmation means for the tech industry. However, it is certain that Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises, from copyright and privacy to intellectual property rights and data storage," writes Issie Lapowsky via Wired.
so much. Whatever else you think about Gorsuch's politics (and unless you own a large corporation they're awful) it's a fact the Republicans just stole that seat. It really angers me to see them doing so much wrong and getting away with it again and again...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How is this sort of rule change when it's in his best interest (and basically gives his side a 9 vote handicap) something he should be allowed to do? When something comes around that he doesn't like can he just arbitrarily increase it back to 60? Seems kinda like bullshit to me...
-SaNo
Trump's the man! Day by day he wipes out the resistance.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
on McConnell's part, regardless of how you feel about the outcome. Passing a left-leaning centrist with polling showing a Democrat in the White House and the Senate a toss-up, and the chance of a far more partisan left-leaning judge. I guess stopping everything that black guy tried to do was the primary objective.
"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal."
- President Barack Obama Nov. 2013 when Reid used the nuclear option for the first time on all federal judges except for the supreme court.
Coathangers! Lots and lots of them! This is WHY we are REPUBLICANS!
https://qz.com/950828/neil-gor...
love is just extroverted narcissism
If you can't beat the hare, well....you just change the rules of the race. Um....yep.
Nah, they should nuke Mecca first. Take out their magic god-stone and the jihadis will have nothing left to fight for.
Why do you keep throwing the Constitution in people's faces? It's just a god damned piece of paper!
And since you like wine and cheese more than burgers and shakes: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (sauf si vous êtes musulman).
Rules, laws, principles, morals, ethics; there are all for losers.
When democrats change the rules... It's evil
When republicans change the rules... It's the interest of the people...
It is appalling that they missed an historic opportunity to appoint a transgender judge to the Supreme Court, to represent the 18% of Americans who are LGBTQ2S.
Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate.
Nah, Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of Mitch McConnell refusing to do his Constitutional duty last year.
As annoying as it as it is, the Advice and Consent Clause is a limit on the President, not a mandate on the Senate to take action:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.
https://aclj.org/supreme-court...
i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.
i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.
Uh, excuse me? This piece of paper which defined a republic experiment unlike any that has existed before it?
and not President. But nice Strawman there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And the next one's going to be easy. And the next one could matter, too. Thanks Dems!
The conservatives know demographics are running against them, that's why they're dropping all pretense of playing ball and doing things like this. Gorsuch gives them decades of a reliable conservative vote on the supreme court, which they need because during those decades the power of the old, white conservative party will be fading. Despite the cat-bird seat they find themselves in now, they lost seats in both houses last time and only stomach the guy in the white house so he can do things like bump up the defense budget and nominate guys like Gorsuch. It's been a good strategy. Take state houses, gerrymander, be the ultimate party of obstruction. But it's breaking down because they empowered the wacko right, which is making them unable to govern and they really don't want to deliver what the voters want anyway. So they had some of the people some of the time, but they need to do something new.
The "majority" Trump got was the goddamn electoral college. 71% of eligible voters, and 78% -- SEVENTY-EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT -- of the American People as a whole, did NOT vote for her!
Two can play the bullshit math rhetoric games, and guess who wins? TRUMP YOU CRY BABY!
Every Muslim who does not have the courage ...
Do I really need to complete the thought?
Thanks for the prejudiced opinion calling all Republicans racists. Since you seem so enlightened, I'd think you would also understand that the popular vote means nothing in Presidential elections. And even understand that given the rules of the election, you cannot say with any certainty what the popular tally would have been had that been the rules. Both the campaigns would have had different focuses and people in various states that lean heavily in one direction or the other may have voted differently.
meanwhile people are being interrogated for hours upon entering the country because of their religion
Incorrect. They are being interrogated for hours because of their culture of radicalization. It is simple prudence.
People are being interrogated for hours entering the country because of their nation origin. You can call it 'religion' if you like, but that's just your racism emerging.
Pro death penalty I can see, the other two not so much. He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues. He has also commented that abortion rights are dependent on the court's finding that a fetus does not qualify as a person, which even the most liberal judge should agree with.
You can sit there a spit venom at everyone, and when criticize them for defending ourselves. What the hell is wrong with you?
He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues.
Is that because he isn't familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? That's rather disturbing for a Supreme Court Justice.
And Mohammed Ali Jr. was born where, exactly?
you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.
https://aclj.org/supreme-court... [aclj.org]
i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion
http://www.economist.com/blogs... [economist.com]
I'd think you'd worry a bit more about Congressional malfeasance.
Of course, the fact is, all that President Obama had to do was this:
"he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,"
No effort by Congress to consider his nominee? Ok, he could force the Senate to meet. Bring a list of names. Eventually they'd do their job. And it'd be ENTIRELY Constitutional.
i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws.
If you read the Constitution, the President has obligations with regards to the laws:
Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If a law were passed that violated the aforementioned, the President would have the OBLIGATION to ignore and deny them.
vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.
Obama, as even DONALD TRUMP admitted, deported 2.5 million people. What exactly did Obama do wrong? You can't even say it isn't constitutional for the President to grant such reprieves.
i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers.
You won't get that with Gorsuch. He'll just claim that to justify his abuses. Just like a certain Chief Justice Taney.
There is nothing more dangerous than a man who can't stand on his principals, but will gladly wrap himself in the cloak of others to defend his iniquities.
i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that...
Which is why you're wrong. See Kentucky:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
Pennsylvania:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienabl
The nuclear option will come back to haunt them.
You would think that the party of the filibuster as a basic tactic would have figured this out, because as that "commie bitch" on the Supreme court noted, the situation is a pendulum, and if you do a little math and dating, the Democrats are poised for ramming some supreme court nominees who are not going to be appreciated by the Republicans.
That's so obvious that it qualifies not as the law of nintended consequences, but more like plain old unfixable stupid.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
hes talking about muslims, not republicans
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Will only be most Republican seats in both houses.
People dont like it if you dont follow the rules and 245 years of precedent even in politics.
Nice quote from Warren. Question for you, what if the law is on the side of a corporation? Should a judge unilaterally decide to ignore the law just to let the little guy stick it to the man?
....lets be clear: aside from USSC judges, Democrats had already in 2013 used 'the nuclear option' to remove the filibuster-ability for pretty much every OTHER appointment:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
-Styopa
> 31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."
White males need a catchy phrase, too. Women of Color... meet Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Yes, seven Muslim majority countries chosen under Obama because of their, once again, majority Muslim populations. Meanwhile American muslims are being interrogated for travelling WITHIN the country, including a former police chief. So to say it's not over religion is either naiive or disingenuous.
"Culture of radicalization"? You mean, like.... Saudi Arabia? Care to tell me why the one country that gave us the 9/11 highjackers, which initiated all this bullshit security theater, would be exempted when it comea to "radicalization"? Your bigotry is so massive, you can't see around it.
> not a mandate on the Senate to take action ... and Consent of the Senate
yeah, it is.
Because the GOP was filibustering pretty much every nominee for purely partisan reasons. Funny how you left that part out.
Those people don't have to come here. For instance, they could go to Germany instead. If it's ok to target white men for 'privilege' because they're white and male, then it's perfectly ok to target people with muslim backgrounds for indications of terrorist involvement.
The 'racist', 'nazi', and 'fascist' name calling got stale a long time ago, btw.
Coincidentally, everything you say you want Democrats to do is exactly what a fascist party would do. Every hear of hypocrisy?
You mean Trump's bigotry. I think Saudi Arabia should be on the list too. It's not on the list for purely political reasons.
Please regail me as to how you personally have been "targeted".
*scoff* Speaking from the UK, if you think the Democrats in the US have pulled to the left, you're smoking something really strong. It's not that the Dens have moved left AT ALL - Obama is a solid centre (if not right-leaning) conservative, and HC isn't that far left of him, even if the Democrats would like to pull her that way - (Bernie is to her left, but not as extreme as you'd think).
The problem is that the Republican's have pulled so far off the right, jumping in bed with the white supremacists, that the centre now looks like its the extreme left - what you see is nothing more than an illusion, which is why the Republican's are winning. If you WANT a fascist state, then you're going the right way about it - and right-wing Supreme Court judges will speed that up, not get in its way. If you think that's a great idea, then that's up to you - but don't mistake it for centrism or left-leaning, let alone communism, even if the two kinda wrap around at the extremes. (Government=industry=government)
Lenin killed an estimated 15 million Russians, Stalin is estimated to kill between 40 and 50 million Russians, Mao killed between 50 and 80 million Chinese, Pol Pot killed an estimated 2 million Cambodians, Castro killed an estimated million, and on and on and on. Those are Leaders^Wevil shitlords that KILLED THEIR OWN PEOPLE! Simple source here. If you can't understand why the numbers are big ranges, there is only so much estimating you can do from mass graves.
If you believe that those Communists are better, or even "not so bad" prove it! Have the intestinal fortitude to commit to your beliefs! Go be a communist. If you live for twenty or so years, come back and tell us how great it is. People from those countries today do everything they can to get out, I'm sure there are people happy to switch countries with you.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Judges who believe that law is only what society perceives it to be at the moment are the activist judges. The overwhelming majority of those people have been leftists. Telltale signs are things like believing in a "living" Constitution. Such a claim requires ignoring not just the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers for history, but the US Constitution itself (Article 5).
These are the same "activist" judges that have been consistently overturned, even by other judges that lean left, including those on the Supreme Court.
I'm going to bet that you can find some Judges on the Right who meet the same criteria, but they are far more rare. They would tend to be the extreme Religious types, who don't last long due to Article I in the Bill of Rights.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Politicians and policies are affected by politics. Who knew?
Eat Bananas? Drink Coke? Then yeah, you kinda did. America uses it's military and CIA to maintain an empire that lets you do those things for a price you can afford at a profit margin tolerable to mega-Corprations. Or do you actually believe we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and meddled in South American politics for freedom's sake? You're complicit in it. Probably more so given your vehement denial of it.
I'm not saying the weight of the world needs to be on your shoulders alone. But I am saying you had a hand in it going to shit. Want to get rid of that guilt that made you speak up on a random internet forum? Push for public transportation and renewables. Demand an end to drone strikes. Demand the government take real action on poverty, disease and ignorance. Or don't, and keep deflecting that guilt on forums. It's worked for this long.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
was a) Hilary didn't campaign in the eastern swing states. I mean that. Not at all. And b) Trump advocated for solutions to people's problems while Hilary had nothing but platitudes and insults. Nobody believes Trump, but like he said: What have you got to lose? For the 60-70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, not a whole lot.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You wouldn't have been able to use the Phrase if there wasn't. Nice Straw Man though. You managed to completely ignore the real issue, which is that America isn't really a democracy and that our entire system was built from the ground up by wealthy oligarchs watching out for themselves. I mean, look at who wrote the Constitution. I mean _all_ of them. Not just the ones from 5th grade. They were a bunch of Rich assholes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Affirmative action law affects quite a bit actually (eg how people are considered for job applications).
2. 'hate speech' law and its hypocritical advocates who want to silence criticism of socjus as bigotry.
The Democrats really thought that we'd accept a 60-vote threshold for our candidates and a 51-vote threshold for theirs. Maybe if JEB! had won, but it appears that Trump's fighting spirit is spreading. It is catching on in unexpected places, like Congress.
So please, tell me more about how this is a "stolen seat". I need something to laugh at while I wait for Kennedy and Ginsburg to retire.
See that "Preview" button?
Yes, Obama didn't want to offend one of the largest foreign donors to Obama's party. That's why Obama didn't put Saudi Arabia on Obama's list.
See that "Preview" button?
If you use the term "false flag" and you want to see what a fruit cake looks like just spend a minute in front of a mirror.
Wait, Obama issued the ban?
Fucking moron.
You're nitpicking the difference between a rule and a norm. Consider a country club where the established practice is that you don't pass other players on the golf course without asking permission first, but nothing in the club rules specifies that. Or, perhaps it specifies you have to ask, but not that the other players must say yes. I can choose to violate those then, freely, with no recourse for you other than calling me an asshole maybe, because it's not literally spelled out word for word in the actual rules.
Put in geekier terms, it's like a rules lawyer in a gaming group. Yes, he's technically correct on the rule, but he's still a complete asshole that no one likes that's trying to break the game in his favor, by bending and twisting things to his advantage.
What should have happened, in this case, was that politicians should have been punished for these sorts of asshat shenanigans by getting voted out of office. Unfortunately, we keep rewarding them by voting them back in, and their behavior won't change until some of them start losing elections because of it.
Job done.
When GOP have given up every pretense of being rational, why the fuck limit yourself to the sane? Kick the fucker out and put a leftist (and a REAL leftist) in and don't even give it a vote.
And when the complaints come in say "Well if you really liked the rules to be obeyed YOU SHOULD HAVE FUCKING DONE SO WHEN YOU WERE RESTRICTED BY THEM".
This is great news for big corps, now they finally have a fanboi in SCOTUS. As far as other legislation goes, the social achievements of the past 50 years can be kissed good bye. If it would reach SCOTUS, Gorsuch would even vote to put segregation back in place. That kind of a classy guy he is!
The US is going straight to hell! No, it is not Trump's fault, it is the fault of the irresponsible, uneducated, and chronically naive voters who put that yahoo into office along with the dimwitted Tea Party radicals. Fighting ISIS in Syria and installing nationalistic extremistic nazis into Congress....that's America today!
Obama only banned Iraqis. But the media didn't lose thier fucking shit, so you never knew that.
Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party ...
Should I assume you're just sheltered and ignorant and not a lying sack of shit?
Obama: "bring a gun"
Obama: "argue with neighbors, get in their face"
Obama: "kick their ass"
Obama: "Latinos ... punish enemies [fellow Americans]
Grow some balls and see why you're ignorant of all this
If you are just ignorant and not a lying sack of shit.
And if you are just ignorant, it's got to be at least partially deliberate.
How the fuck did you miss "Fuck Trump! Fuck white people!" Ooooh! So "progressive"!
Because we have diplomatic relations with the functions by government of Saudi Arabia. If we need a background check we can get it. You'll lose every debate if you fail to educate yourself about your opponents positions.
No, idiot. They were chosen because they have hostile or non functional governments and getting of their citizens is impossible. Unlike the other 43 majority Muslim nations.
Vetting
Six of the seven banned countries were among general Wesley Clark's list of countries the Pentagon planned to topple after 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... There was one other country in Clark's list that isn't among the travel ban countries, and--big surprise--it's majority Muslim too (Lebanon), not to mention another enemy of Israel. You are delusional if you think the travel ban list is some sort of unbiased evaluation of extremism: once again, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list when bin Laden and almost all the hijackers were saudi? Or if it's an evalutation of stability, Egypt went through a military coup, why aren't they on the list?
And thus continues our slide into dystopia
The countries were supposedly decided under Obama, but had been chosen for destruction since the early 2000s.
We sure performed great background checks on the hijackers, didn't we? Oh, but that was just a boo boo, right?
It's been shown in multiple studies that black-looking names on school and work applications result in lower response rates, so it's more than a bit paranoid to think the deck is stacked against you because of affirnative action.
How has your speech been limited in real life? Have you been harassed, taunted or threatened for things you say due to race differences?
No. It's not an evaluation of extremism. It's an evaluation of our ability to get people from those countries.
Vet
It was a different time. But thanks for acknowledging I'm right.
More than tech issues, this selection threatens to set society back with his stance on abortion, and other Rights issues!
Get your gun! You will likely need it for the coming revolution!!!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?
Nope, they voted, and that makes all the difference.
I'd have respected the GOP if they'd done it through the process of the Senate enough to call a vote. They did not.
From your own link: "The move came shortly after most Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court." So do you condemn Schumer et al. for filibustering Gorsuch?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Obama didn't ban anyone, just fyi.
You've been reading too much right wing propoganda.
If you're referring to the"ban" that occurred about 3 or 4 years ago, all he did was instituted stricter checks (you know, what the right wing has been screaming for) which delayed processing for a few months.
Most presidents ban specific countries for specific threats with specific end dates. The one that I've seen brought up like the Iranian hostage situation (banned until you help us with the hostages).
There's no "until terrorism is finished", because that's just dumb. It will never be finished - just look at Timothy McVeigh and the like (those who vandalise mosques). Even American citizens get in on the action.
Did you not comprehend what I said?
Schumer voted. It's a recorded vote. In the Senate record.
McConnell did not call a vote on Garland. Thus no respect for him, as he refused to vote. On the Record.
I didn't acknowledge anything, my point was that your excuse as to why we exempt Saudi Arabia is bullshit. Now you're backpedaling to implying that we once didn't have good background checks back then? "It was a different time" my ass, we had six of the seven banned countries on the list for destruction right after 9/11.
Oh, that's right, I mentioned that elsewhere and you failed to even respond to it--actually addressing what the other person says is a good technique if you like to win arguments, otherwise your talking points look paid.
I love how you keep getting vaguer as to precisely what our definition of countries worth banning would be, all the while acting more and more certain about the rationale. Just today there were terrorist bombings of Coptic cathedrals in Egypt. I repeat--why then is Egypt not on the list as well? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a response to that question the first time. It makes me wonder, are these your talking points, or someone else's?
No, I understood what you said. There was a vote AFTER the Republicans ended the filibuster. The ONLY reason Schumer voted is his filibuster was ended. That's it. If the GOP didn't end the filibuster, Schumer would have never voted. So you are completely cool with filibustering USSC judges, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because we can vet Egyptian citizens.
So let me get this straight: 15 years ago was "a differemt time", but six of the seven countries the pentagon wanted to invade back then just miraculously happened to all entail vetting issues now, in thos very different time 15 years later, such that we could still justify banning their people? Where did you even read about this vetting issue that you're so attached to it?
That was the reason given by the Obama Administration for selecting those 7 countries. You seem to be saying we should just put a travel ban on all the Muslim nations including the ones we have decent relations with.