But, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately" tells you how those justices will likely rule.
The only thing that stands in Trump's way is that pesky first amendment, which prohibits the government establishment of religion. This was the basis for the Fourth Circuit's court stay against the ban.
And SCOTUS rejected that basis when it threw out the stay... The "Establishment Clause" argument is based not on the legislation but on the campaign rhetoric of candidate Trump, the Executive Order doesn't even have the word Muslim in it.
The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban".
There is no "religious test" in the second (or even the first) Executive Order, there are only comments made by Candidate Trump.
What SCOTUS essentially said was the injunction was incorrect - the lower court based it's decision on the legislation based on things not in the legislation, not the actual wording of the legislation.
No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.
And that issue is... what, exactly? The lower courts never identified one, they blocked it based on "mean things" the candidate said. The injunctions that are now lifted were not based on constitutional issues.
Each year aprox. one million legal immigrants of various statuses are admitted into the United States, so as a matter of fact, yes, we do welcome them with open arms. A desire to know who you are welcoming is prudent.
It has been evidence based since at least the 1970's. I remember discussing greenhouse gases in my HS Chemistry class.
Yeah, and do you remember what that "evidence-based" investigation pointed out? A coming ice age... Then, when it didn't happen, the "evidence" was "cleaned up and then there was talk of global warming, until that proved it wasn't going to happen, then we settled on the hard to disprove "climate change" conclusion, which has the beauty of being impossible to dispute, because no matter what the climate does, as long as it continues to change, their "evidence-based" conclusions don't have to be revised again.
90% of the snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro is gone.
Compared with 150 years ago, not since the turn of the 21st century - the majority of that ice loss occurred before man-caused climate change.
So what is your stupid point?
I doubt anyone made a prediction, you probably just cite a newspaper. That is not a prediction.
If you click the link provided, the prediction cited was in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie:
The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
Please explain to me how you plan to "supply" Europe with electricity generated in African deserts?
I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
assuming classical party-lines, Republicans would have no issue with a 'Trans-specific' bathroom, it would be liberals that would find it offensive.
As a reminder, the issue that this country obsessed about an embarrassingly long time was with the requirement that transgender individuals to use bathrooms that conform with what's between their legs...
"Income redistribution" generally means forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.
Exactly what you suggested - taxes are forcibly taken (care to argue property taxes are 'optional'?).
What I'm suggesting would simply mean the "poor" choosing to fully use a valuable resource which they already own.
You want gov't to cut checks to the 80% of the population that is poor, funded exclusively by the forced property taxes collected from new residents. That EXACTLY matches your definition of "income redistribution".
The move largely a response to the successes of the Barack Obama campaign in 2008, thought to have been the first data-driven campaign.
And look, it worked - too bad Obama's former campaign workers (now ensconced in his "Organizing For America" non-profit, which was fully-formed from his 2012 "Obama For America" campaign) were unavailable to Hillary...
And the city would collect real estate tax from the new buildings, with half going to the city, and half distributed as cash payments among the city's current residents (not new residents who move in after the law is passed).
You really want income-redistribution on the city level?
You really want to segregate the "current residents" from the new residents?
You don't seem to understand, increasing the tax base without increasing the services required results in tax savings, but I fail to understand why the new residents will consume community resources at a lower-level than the current residents - they won't have school-age children? they won't be victims of crime? Their apartments won't catch on fire? Etc.
That's actually not very good. Some estimates have median 2-bedroom rent in SF over $50,000 annually.
First off, Firemen typically work several days on, then several days off, allowing them to live quite far from their fire house, since they only commute, on average, once a week.
Second, your counter argument is a bit unfair - why must a a fireman rent a "median 2-bedroom" apartment", why not look for a below-median single bedroom apartment? Or have you imagined this first-year firefighter already has a family and a stay-at-home spouse?
The problem with that is that it makes it much harder to employees to switch jobs.
As an employer, is it my concern that employees can easily switch jobs? Invest in relocation packages, locate in a nice alternative city, and enjoy a locked-in workforce.
I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise. I've pushed hard on immigration.
And how, exactly, did Tim Cook become an 'expert' in immigration?
By hiring them?
By sitting next to them in meetings?
By having immigrant neighbors?
By reading the newspaper/watching news reports on TV?
He seems to think his success at Apple somehow translates into expertise in political and governmental issues. He's free to have his own opinion, but possessing an opinion doesn't render one an 'expert' in the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Create New Probiotic Beer That Boosts Immunity
Poop beer?
But, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately" tells you how those justices will likely rule.
Yes, with the Constitution.
The only thing that stands in Trump's way is that pesky first amendment, which prohibits the government establishment of religion. This was the basis for the Fourth Circuit's court stay against the ban.
And SCOTUS rejected that basis when it threw out the stay... The "Establishment Clause" argument is based not on the legislation but on the campaign rhetoric of candidate Trump, the Executive Order doesn't even have the word Muslim in it.
The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban".
There is no "religious test" in the second (or even the first) Executive Order, there are only comments made by Candidate Trump.
What SCOTUS essentially said was the injunction was incorrect - the lower court based it's decision on the legislation based on things not in the legislation, not the actual wording of the legislation.
So could something that would otherwise be illegal become legal if it was enacted for the right reason?
You've already established the reverse - something that is legal is rendered illegal because it was enacted for the wrong reason.
No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.
And that issue is... what, exactly? The lower courts never identified one, they blocked it based on "mean things" the candidate said. The injunctions that are now lifted were not based on constitutional issues.
Each year aprox. one million legal immigrants of various statuses are admitted into the United States, so as a matter of fact, yes, we do welcome them with open arms. A desire to know who you are welcoming is prudent.
It has been evidence based since at least the 1970's. I remember discussing greenhouse gases in my HS Chemistry class.
Yeah, and do you remember what that "evidence-based" investigation pointed out? A coming ice age... Then, when it didn't happen, the "evidence" was "cleaned up and then there was talk of global warming, until that proved it wasn't going to happen, then we settled on the hard to disprove "climate change" conclusion, which has the beauty of being impossible to dispute, because no matter what the climate does, as long as it continues to change, their "evidence-based" conclusions don't have to be revised again.
Any links that current climate models can track historical ones? ...
No?
Guessed so
FTFY
90% of the snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro is gone.
Compared with 150 years ago, not since the turn of the 21st century - the majority of that ice loss occurred before man-caused climate change.
So what is your stupid point?
I doubt anyone made a prediction, you probably just cite a newspaper. That is not a prediction.
If you click the link provided, the prediction cited was in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie:
The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
Please explain to me how you plan to "supply" Europe with electricity generated in African deserts?
I bet he could talk Justice Alito into voting for installing a transgender bathroom in the building.
assuming classical party-lines, Republicans would have no issue with a 'Trans-specific' bathroom, it would be liberals that would find it offensive.
As a reminder, the issue that this country obsessed about an embarrassingly long time was with the requirement that transgender individuals to use bathrooms that conform with what's between their legs...
Teens or Pre-teens
To be enforced how? How many teens or or-teens gave their real age when they signed up to Facebook, twitter, etc?
Dodged a bullet with that decision...
"Income redistribution" generally means forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.
Exactly what you suggested - taxes are forcibly taken (care to argue property taxes are 'optional'?).
What I'm suggesting would simply mean the "poor" choosing to fully use a valuable resource which they already own.
You want gov't to cut checks to the 80% of the population that is poor, funded exclusively by the forced property taxes collected from new residents. That EXACTLY matches your definition of "income redistribution".
The move largely a response to the successes of the Barack Obama campaign in 2008, thought to have been the first data-driven campaign.
And look, it worked - too bad Obama's former campaign workers (now ensconced in his "Organizing For America" non-profit, which was fully-formed from his 2012 "Obama For America" campaign) were unavailable to Hillary...
And the city would collect real estate tax from the new buildings, with half going to the city, and half distributed as cash payments among the city's current residents (not new residents who move in after the law is passed).
You really want income-redistribution on the city level?
You really want to segregate the "current residents" from the new residents?
You don't seem to understand, increasing the tax base without increasing the services required results in tax savings, but I fail to understand why the new residents will consume community resources at a lower-level than the current residents - they won't have school-age children? they won't be victims of crime? Their apartments won't catch on fire? Etc.
That's actually not very good. Some estimates have median 2-bedroom rent in SF over $50,000 annually.
First off, Firemen typically work several days on, then several days off, allowing them to live quite far from their fire house, since they only commute, on average, once a week.
Second, your counter argument is a bit unfair - why must a a fireman rent a "median 2-bedroom" apartment", why not look for a below-median single bedroom apartment? Or have you imagined this first-year firefighter already has a family and a stay-at-home spouse?
There have been multiple articles now about googlers (and others) who lived together as a couple in a box truck while saving a down payment.
You understand the articles were written BECAUSE they are not the norm, right?
Modular can mean anything from a double-wide to a two story colonial set on permanent foundations.
No, it doesn't. Modular never meant "double-wide", it means Pre-Fab, as opposed to stick-built (or site-built), as in "assembled from modules."
The problem with that is that it makes it much harder to employees to switch jobs.
As an employer, is it my concern that employees can easily switch jobs? Invest in relocation packages, locate in a nice alternative city, and enjoy a locked-in workforce.
if affordable housing is a problem, why not let most of the staff telecommute from less expensive areas?
Or, you know, relocate to almost any other county in America?
Ah, the Foxconn Housing Model, with an American twist - how "inventive".
I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise. I've pushed hard on immigration.
And how, exactly, did Tim Cook become an 'expert' in immigration?
By hiring them?
By sitting next to them in meetings?
By having immigrant neighbors?
By reading the newspaper/watching news reports on TV?
He seems to think his success at Apple somehow translates into expertise in political and governmental issues. He's free to have his own opinion, but possessing an opinion doesn't render one an 'expert' in the subject.