Poor Trump... keeps losing!

[Cancel 2018.2]

[FONT="]We reject the contention advanced by the city, see Brief for Respondent 15, that our inquiry must end with the text of the laws at issue. Facial neutrality is not determinative. The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. The Clause "forbids subtle departures from neutrality," [/FONT][/COLOR][I]Gillette v. [I]United States, [URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/437/case.html"]401 U. S. 437[/URL], 452 (1971), and "covert suppression of particular religious beliefs," Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 703 (opinion of Burger, C. J.). Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked as well as overt. "The Court must survey meticulously the circumstances of governmental categories to eliminate, as it were, religious gerrymanders." Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U. S. 664, 696 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).[/I][/I]

Yeah, they look at effect as applied, such as impact. Nothing you cited backs up your claim that they look at what the legislatures said or intended to determine whether the law is unconstutional. Do you even know what you meant by your claim?

Try harder.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I can understand how you feel, if you are hopelessly devoted to Rump.

I am not in the least, as I've said many times. However you have become an insufferable boor on the subject. You are almost as bad as Thingy.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[Timshel]

Where do those cases talk about what the legislation said as proof of what the legislation means? Cite the actual words.

[FONT=&quot]In determining if the object of a law is a neutral one under the Free Exercise Clause, we can also find guidance in our equal protection cases. As Justice Harlan noted in the related context of the Establishment Clause, "[n]eutrality in its application requires an equal protection mode of analysis." [/FONT]Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U. S., at 696 (concurring opinion). Here, as in equal protection cases, we may determine the city council's object from both direct and circumstantial evidence. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266 (1977). Relevant evidence includes, among other things, the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body. Id., at 267-268. These objective factors bear on the question of discriminatory object. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279, n. 24 (1979).

Look at Walz or the equal protection cases noted by Harlan like Arlington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Development_Corp.

Determining the intent of the official action can be difficult (outside of rare cases where racial discrimination is obvious on the face), and the court suggested that a fact intensive balancing test considering many factors including but not limited to: 1) the impact of the challenged decision (whether it disproportionately impacted one race); 2)the historical background of decisions under the official action, particularly if unequally applied in situations involving race; 3) the specific sequences of events leading up to the decision challenged in the case, including departures from normal procedures in making decisions and substantive departures, (i.e., if the decision maker would have made a different choice had the applicant been white, then race was the deciding factor); and 4) the legislative history where there are contemporary statements made by the governmental body who created the official action.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well, it's the only thing that explains your and ila's inability to understand that Congress has no power to grant Trump exemptions to the Constitution. It must seem like a very foreign idea to you comrade, but he has no absolute powers.

Oh do fuck off, how did Medicare get passed as that was supposed to be unconstitutional? Norah never answered that question and I doubt you will either.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

No, you are narrowing what I said to specifically rhetoric, its a tactic you are using to try to confuse the issue, but its about looking at the purpose of the statute, not only what it says.

Oversimplification. The objective can be considered for several reasons.

A law can be unconstitutional on its face, or as applied. The objective must be a legitimate government interest, and rhetoric can be evaluated to consider the true, rather than stated, goal.

Those are YOUR words.

You have yet to back them up and because you can't you dishonestly claim I am trying to confuse the issue. Your specific cite in Lemon looked ONLY at the statute to determine purpose.

As applied has nothing to do with any rhetoric, nothing.

As I said, what legislation said is used for ambiguity, not your claim to consider whether the actual words are true or not. You are wrong. Don't put off on me twisting your words, your words are right there and you can't back them up.

 

[cancel2 2022]

He still is limited by the Constitution. So long as it does not violate the first or fifth, he can do it, but the idiot made it clear that he intended to violate the first.

The courts are supposed to adjudicate on written and verbal submissions, not campaign rhetoric ffs. That's when it becomes political not judicial!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

[FONT="]In determining if the object of a law is a neutral one under the Free Exercise Clause, we can also find guidance in our equal protection cases. As Justice Harlan noted in the related context of the Establishment Clause, "[n]eutrality in its application requires an equal protection mode of analysis." [/FONT][/COLOR][I]Walz v. [I]Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U. S., at 696 (concurring opinion). Here, as in equal protection cases, we may determine the city council's object from both direct and circumstantial evidence. [I]Arlington Heights v. [I]Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., [URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/252/case.html"]429 U. S. 252[/URL], 266 (1977). Relevant evidence includes, among other things, the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body. Id., at 267-268. These objective factors bear on the question of discriminatory object. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279, n. 24 (1979).

[/I][/I][/I][/I]Look at Walz or the equal protection cases noted by Harlan like Arlington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Development_Corp.

Determining the intent of the official action can be difficult (outside of rare cases where racial discrimination is obvious on the face), and the court suggested that a fact intensive balancing test considering many factors including but not limited to: 1) the impact of the challenged decision (whether it disproportionately impacted one race); 2)the historical background of decisions under the official action, particularly if unequally applied in situations involving race; 3) the specific sequences of events leading up to the decision challenged in the case, including departures from normal procedures in making decisions and substantive departures, (i.e., if the decision maker would have made a different choice had the applicant been white, then race was the deciding factor); and 4) the legislative history where there are contemporary statements made by the governmental body who created the official action.

The last paragraph is not found in your cite, where did you get it? I want to see the context and what case it is.

 

[Timshel]

Yeah, they look at effect as applied, such as impact. Nothing you cited backs up your claim that they look at what the legislatures said or intended to determine whether the law is unconstutional. Do you even know what you meant by your claim?

Try harder.

Yes it does.

The Clause "forbids subtle departures from neutrality," [/FONT]Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 452 (1971), and "covert suppression of particular religious beliefs," Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 703 (opinion of Burger, C. J.).
...
"The Court must survey meticulously the circumstances of governmental categories to eliminate, as it were, religious gerrymanders." Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U. S. 664, 696 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).


Also, see the Arlington case cited.

I don't think extra effort will help you. You should leave matters of the law to someone more inclined.

 

[zappasguitar]

ROFL...these special little Trumpflakes just can't STAND IT when the courts tell them Trump is full of shit.

Hell, Trump's OWN WORDS prove he had something other in mind...

========================================================================================================================

It’s fitting that Trump’s big mouth was his undoing. For years now he has publicly held the position that if elected he would “ban Muslims” from coming to the United States. Now that he is actually in office, his argument was that his executive order had nothing to do with religion. The countries he picked just happened to be Muslim-majority. The people he detained in airports just happened to be Muslims. The exemptions he said would be allowed just happened to be non-Muslims. Judge Watson wasn’t buying any of it.

Calling Trump’s comments “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order.” Put another way: This order is bigoted to its core – as was the previous one.

Watson concluded:

“Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.”

http://addictinginfo.org/2017/03/15...an-is-about-banning-muslims-slaps-down-order/

 

[Timshel]

The last paragraph is not found in your cite, where did you get it? I want to see the context and what case it is.

You want to be a lazy, obstinate and obtuse pain in the ass. I gave you the reference can't you look it up yourself? Did they not teach you how to search for things at clown college?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/252/

(a) Official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. "[Such] impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination." Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 426 U. S. 242. A racially discriminatory intent, as evidenced by such factors as disproportionate impact, the historical background of the challenged decision, the specific antecedent events, departures from normal procedures, and contemporary statements of the decision makers, must be shown. Pp. 429 U. S. 264-268.

 

[cancel2 2022]

But the "plain wording" of the XO is just semantic bullshit designed to cover up the truth.

Trump even stated he couldn't honestly describe what his first XO was designed to do because the courts would never let him ban Muslims alone.

They had to disguise the real intent by calling for a travel ban in specific "regions".

Can you tell how it is a ban on Muslims when all of the citizens of a banned country would be subject to the order regardless of religious persuasion?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[cancel2 2022]

They certainly are. There is plenty of precedent supporting that they MUST! Not just can, MUST consider it.

Bullshit on stilts!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[zappasguitar]

Sort of jumping the gun there son.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/09/illegal-immigration-from-mexico-down-40-percent-in-trumps-first-month/

Down 40% is a big win.

I do think Trump is making 1 significant mistake with the travel ban.

We don't need a travel ban - we need a long term hold on ALL immigration.

That would blow any legal opposition to the travel ban out of the water.

Of course you have NO PROOF to back those numbers.

They could just as easily mean the Border Patrol has missed capturing an unusually high number of immigrants as they crossed the border.

 

[Timshel]

The courts are supposed to adjudicate on written and verbal submissions, not campaign rhetoric ffs. That's when it becomes political not judicial!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

Not according to court precedent.

 

[Jarod]

The courts are supposed to adjudicate on written and verbal submissions, not campaign rhetoric ffs. That's when it becomes political not judicial!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

Do you have a cite that backs up your claim?

 

[Jarod]

The last paragraph is not found in your cite, where did you get it? I want to see the context and what case it is.

This is what he does when he has lost an argument.

 

[zappasguitar]

Yeah, they look at effect as applied, such as impact. Nothing you cited backs up your claim that they look at what the legislatures said or intended to determine whether the law is unconstutional. Do you even know what you meant by your claim?

Try harder.

More condescending derision...ROFL!!

 

[Jarod]

Those are YOUR words.

You have yet to back them up and because you can't you dishonestly claim I am trying to confuse the issue. Your specific cite in Lemon looked ONLY at the statute to determine purpose.

As applied has nothing to do with any rhetoric, nothing.

As I said, what legislation said is used for ambiguity, not your claim to consider whether the actual words are true or not. You are wrong. Don't put off on me twisting your words, your words are right there and you can't back them up.

Whatever, I am not being paid to teach a Con law class. If you want to know your very little specific question, I am sure there is caselaw to back it up. Do some research. Otherwise go on spouting off uninformed opinions to lawyers about what appellate courts do and don't consider.

 

[Jarod]

"Relevant evidence includes, among other things, the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body."

So you see the events (like racist statements made by a presidential candidate) leading to the enactment or official policy in question.

 

[zappasguitar]

Can you tell how it is a ban on Muslims when all of the citizens of a banned country would be subject to the order regardless of religious persuasion?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

When a fisherman casts his nets upon the water, he ensnares many different fish besides the specific type he is out there to catch.