You might be right that the law will be struck down for non-constitutional issues...

Which will simply re-affirm my point that the law IS constitutional....

So, I'll call it a win win and be done with it.. :D

For the record, I still don't believe the Justices will look at campaign rhetoric, but as I said, I am in too good a mood to really care right now.. :D

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-1402/concur4.html

Absent an affirmative showing of bad faith on the part of the consular officer who denied Berashk a visa—which Din has not plausibly alleged with sufficient particularity—Mandel instructs us not to “look behind” the Government’s exclusion of Berashk for additional factual details

~kerry v. din, kennedy/alito concurring opinion
.

yes, i believe that's the most likely outcome - constitutionally ambiguous but illegal due to a context of bad faith.

And, what you call "circumventing" legal and constitutional limits is really nothing more than bringing the law into compliance..

no, i mean using legally ambiguous language to discriminate against muslims.

JL

But the MANDATE was unconstitutional.. That's why CJ Roberts change the mandate to a tax and ruled on the tax...

the constitution always takes precedence over other law, but something could be legal or illegal based on case law, statute and regulations without the constitution being definitive one way or the other.

And you think that's what could happen with the President's EO??

not at all, it's just that the tweets demonstrate the president's intent and state of mind regarding the travel ban, the law and the justice system. based on that expressed intent, they will likely rule that the second EO was a dishonest or "bad faith" effort to circumvent legal and constitutional limits on discrimination.

But the text of the order coupled with the Obama reasoning in creating the list PROVES that this is not the case...

And, what you call "circumventing" legal and constitutional limits is really nothing more than bringing the law into compliance..

Much like President Bush did with the Military Commissions Act....

not at all, it's just that the tweets demonstrate the president's intent and state of mind regarding the travel ban, the law and the justice system. based on that expressed intent, they will likely rule that the second EO was a dishonest or "bad faith" effort to circumvent legal and constitutional limits on discrimination.

it may have been constitutionally ambiguous - most scotus decisions are. however, it was NOT ambiguous in that it accepted obamacare as legal.

But let me ask you this.. Can you envision a situation where an order before the SCOTUS would be ruled constitutional but illegal??

the constitution always takes precedence over other law, but something could be legal or illegal based on case law, statute and regulations without the constitution being definitive one way or the other.

JL

Just like me!! :D

That's why I think you'll lose because it borders on IMPOSSIBLE that a Supreme Court Justice would look upon that as "evidence"..

If the SCOTUS looked at JUST the text of the order, as they should, it would be an 8-0 ruling in favor of the Trump Administration...

That is why I am confused by your reluctance...

The SCOTUS usually settles constitutional questions..

But if the SCOTUS kicks the can down the road or changes the issue or the wording or any of a dozen ways they can NOT rule than I would agree with you that THAT doesn't settle our wager...

As I mentioned, the SCOTUS ruling on the TrainWreckCare mandate is a perfect example of an ambiguous ruling..

But if the SCOTUS says that the order is constitutional (I drop the Presidential Authority question because you indicated that we are in agreement on that).... If the SCOTUS explicitly rules that the order is/is not constitutional then the question is settled...

fair enough. if the scotus rules that the EO is legally ALLOWED to be implemented,

That's a big concession and I honestly appreciate it..

But let me ask you this.. Can you envision a situation where an order before the SCOTUS would be ruled constitutional but illegal??

Example???

I think we're really close to agreement here.. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on this..

fair enough. if the scotus rules that the EO is legally ALLOWED to be implemented, regardless of whether or not it actually is, then i'll consider the bet lost. but that's as far as i'll go.

IS THE EO CONSTITUTIONAL....

the trouble with this narrowing of the goalposts is that the constitution is often ambiguous and not the only law involved. it's the highest of the three legal domains (the others being statute and precedent), but something doesn't technically have to be ruled unconstitutional per se to be ruled illegal or not permitted. legal reasoning is by its nature complex and takes many turns; it's rarely if ever stated in black and white. that's more like trying to predict the precise score of a game than the winner. we could make that bet if you wanted, but i can guarantee right now that each of us would read the decision and think that it proved conclusively that we had won, because legal decisions are opinions. hell, they're even CALLED opinions. that you're insisting we bet upon the subjective content of a judicial opinion proves conclusively that you're not currently able to tell the difference.

JL

In that case, the order won't be implemented and, by YOUR hedging, you would have one the bet..

But I am sure you will concede that THAT outcome is not what you envisioned when you made the bet and no where in the realm of possibility would you consider that a "WIN" save for the hedged to hell and back wager......

That is why it's only logical to base the wager on the central question...

IS THE EO CONSTITUTIONAL....

I say yes.. You think no...

And here we are...

And yet, the FACT is that the EO is NOT a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States..

The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled, using campaign rhetoric as their reasoning..

NEVER... NOT ONCE...

it isn't unconstitutional because of who he IS, it's unconstitutional because of what he and his representatives have SAID.

Fine. If you honestly believe that the SCOTUS will rule in your favor based on campaign rhetoric, then you have nothing to worry about.. Make the bet..

But the simple fact is that, when Justices look at a law or an order, they look at the plain text of the law/order...

IF that is ambiguous, THEN they will look at the statements of what people said..

The law ISN'T ambiguous in the slightest.. It states clearly what is what...

So your "FACT" is nothing but an opinion of an opinion...

donald's four tweets this monday, which i already provided on an earlier post, say that the president views the second ban as "watered down" and wants a "much tougher version"

So, the justices are going to rule against the current law/order because Trump said he wanted a tougher one!??? :D

Do you see the legal contortions you have to go thru to get to where you want to be!?? :D

Thank you for sharing your reasoning with me. I really appreciate that, sincerely..

But the SCOTUS will find the law/order constitutional and will find that the POTUS has the authority to implement the law...

That's my position and time will show me to be correct..

1. when campaigning for the ban, donald initially called it a ban on muslims. not syrians, not yemenis, muslims. specifically, "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

2. rudy giuliani referred to the first executive order as a continuation of donald's initial statement against muslims. he said, "So when he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

3. white house policy advisor steven miller said of the revised ban, "you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues what were brought up by the court."

4. donald's four tweets this monday, which i already provided on an earlier post, say that the president views the second ban as "watered down" and wants a "much tougher version"

all these facts suggest that the president's expressed desire for a "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states," a violation of the first amendment establishment clause, has not substantially changed. it isn't unconstitutional because of who he IS, it's unconstitutional because of what he and his representatives have SAID.

JL

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point...

If a person of integrity is known to call into question statements he believes are in error and does so on a regular and on-going basis and then there are statements made that said person of said integrity DOESN'T call into question, it's logical INFERENCE that said person of said integrity DOES in fact, agree with said statement said person of said integrity did not correct..

And, if I recall correctly, you are a big fan of INFERENCE...

Now THAT was damn cute!!!! :D

MY opinion is that the ban IS unconstitutional,

And what facts do you have that supports that opinion??

You don't even know the BASIS for the list itself..

I have given you numerous examples of past Presidents, INCLUDING OBAMA, who have done EXACTLY what President Trump's order does...

Given these FACTS that completely and utterly decimates your opinion, the question must be asked..

What FACTS support your opinion...

I respect your opinion and if you tell me it's supported by nothing but your opinion, then I'll accept that and move on...

But, from all appearances, your opinion is solely supported by ideology and I don't want to believe that is true...

but the supreme court's reasoning is never a simple yes or no.

Perhaps to periphery issues, but the issue of constitutionality is black and white because the SCOTUS MAKES those determinations..

Which is why I argued for the PUSH because sometimes the SCOTUS will kick the can, or change the wording and then you are correct... It's equivocal... It's not a YES OR NO...

But *IF* the court DOES make that black/white, yes/no determination, then the parameters of the wager would be met and we would be able to agree on that..

really i don't need you to post that you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions, because you provide evidence to that effect every day anyway.

I understand the differences...

Where the conflict lies is that my definition of facts and opinions is consistent..

Yer definition appears to change with the political winds...

No where is this more apparent than with your opinions and facts on NOT-45's crimes vs your opinions and facts on Trump's alleged "crimes"... Night and day...

'S ok... When the SCOTUS rules and it is shown that I was right, I'll have bragging rights...

I wasn't really keen on seeing you grovel anyways.. :D Not my nature... You ever read any Beverly Cleary as a child??? :D

silence does not now and never has equaled assent. continuing to repeat this fallacy does not make it so.

MY opinion is that the ban IS unconstitutional, but the supreme court's reasoning is never a simple yes or no. you're asking me to bet on fragments of a supreme court opinion that itself will be open to interpretation. that's nothing BUT wiggle room. after the fact you or i could argue ad infinitum what the scotus opinions mean or don't mean regarding authority or constitutionality, and still not come to any reasoned conclusion. the only outcome of the case that is factual will be whether or not the ban is allowed to go into effect.

really i don't need you to post that you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions, because you provide evidence to that effect every day anyway.

JL

"First of all, this face?? Is super cute"
-Chuck AKA god, SUPERNATURAL

:D

keep telling yourself that.

Well what do YOU think it would mean??

these are distinctions that make no difference. i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question, but i accept your concession that the travel ban will not be reinstated by the scotus.

What part of *COULD* did you not understand??

This is EXACTLY my point on why I am making the wager specific with NO wiggle room..

Because ya'all have a tendency to equivocate and obfuscate the facts when ya'all lose...

i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question,

That's EXACTLY my point.. You have NO IDEA..

But I DO... And THAT's why I want the wager.. Because I know I am right.. :D

If you have no idea on whether or not the order is constitutional then you should have spoken up when morons here made that claim that it IS unconstitutional..

By remaining silent, you indicate that you agree..

But if you are not sure whether or not it is unconstitutional, then I agree.

You would be silly to make the wager.....

not even a little bit.

JL

keep telling yourself that.

Is the order constitutional...

Is the order within the purview of the president...

these are distinctions that make no difference. i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question, but i accept your concession that the travel ban will not be reinstated by the scotus.

JL

Looks like someone had to move the goal posts to plant some hedges....

Ya gotta admit.. THAT was pretty cute.. :D

Your PTSD notwithstanding, I am asking you to bet on the QUESTION..

Is the order constitutional...

Is the order within the purview of the president...

The SCOTUS could very will affirm that the order IS constitutional and IS within the purview of the President, but that since it has expired, it will not be allowed to go into effect..

That would mean that *I* am right and YA'ALL are wrong and THAT is what the wager is all about...

Looks like someone had to move the goal posts to plant some hedges....

heh :D

funny, i was about to say the exact same thing to you.

I am not narrowing the terms..

The wager is based on what I have said all along.. That the order is constitutional and that the President has the authority..

You are the one who wants to move the goal posts and go with some vague outcome that could happen for a million different reasons..

if the scotus says the ban can be fully implemented, whatever the reason, i post for seven days that i am ignorant of the meaning of facts and opinions, and implore you to teach me. if the scotus says the ban cannot be implemented, whatever the reason, you do the same.

That's not what I am saying... Whether the ban goes into effect doesn't answer the question that YA'ALL raised...

You are trying to worm out because you know that I will be vindicated by the SCOTUS ruling... :D

If it's a sure thing, you should have NO PROBLEM with a wager...

The fact you are not wanting to proves my case.. :D

if it's a sure thing, you shouldn't have to narrow the terms to give yourself an out. the fact that you keep wanting to proves my case. ;p

if the scotus says the ban can be fully implemented, whatever the reason, i post for seven days that i am ignorant of the meaning of facts and opinions, and implore you to teach me. if the scotus says the ban cannot be implemented, whatever the reason, you do the same. no moving goalposts, no hedging, just win or lose. the only way it could be a draw would be if the SCOTUS strikes down some parts of the ban and allows other parts to be implemented.

think, mcfly, think! ;)

https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-08-2015/qrR1je.gif

JL

I know, right!! :D

It's really good reading. Kind of a bombshell, if you know what I mean. ;)

THAT is your "bombshell"!!

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Besides, you said that the "bombshell" was going to come from Weds testimony.....

You were wrong and you just can't admit it..

Nice weaseling. You said there was going to be a bombshell. There was no bombshell. You were wrong.

Now you can play the semantic game regarding a promise or a statement. But that won't change the fact that you said there would be a bombshell and there wasn't. And then you lied about it and tried to claim you never said it.

You got caught being wrong and then you got caught lying about it.

These are the facts and they are Undisputed

It's really good reading. Kind of a bombshell, if you know what I mean. ;)

Cat's out of the bag now. Whoop: THERE IT IS!

..... keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one...

And where is the promise? You got a reading comprehension problem. I promised nothing.

No equivocation.. Nothing about public or private..

And then you tried to lie about it and claim you never said it...

I didn't say I never said it; I said I didn't PROMISE it. I can't promise what someone else is going to testify or whether they will give that testimony in public or in private.

I said: Direct testimony is NOT anonymous sources, dumb ass. Wednesday should contain a bombshell if they go ahead and allow that testimony. Thursday should be interesting because Comey is a great note taker. That's all I said. Learn to read and comprehend, and stop twisting my words around and defining them through your ignorance and inability to comprehend the written word.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/02/ftp439/#comment-101710

Why don't you make yourself useful and take Donald Trump's language and tell us all about his pathological disease of lying every 3-5 minutes. You take such great pains to twist poster's words around in order to call them a liar while Benedict Donald lies like a rug and you twist yourself into a pretzel defending a true liar. It's comical to watch you whine about liars and then defend President Pants-On-Fire. :p

then why all the hedging about which argument they have to use? a win is a win is a win, and a loss is a loss is a loss.

no?

JL

But the ACT of parking the car is not illegal or unconstitutional..

It all comes down to the parameters... the criteria that Obama used to create the list in question..

Once the Justices see that, then there is no doubt in my mind as to how they will rule..

Ya'all keep ignoring that one salient point.. And now we know why.. :D

I personally do NOT think the SCOTUS will set a precedent and give this POTUS authority that would allow him to basically ban whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants... you know, like a Christian ban.

Like I said before (learning opportunity here):

A law which is facially neutral violates equal protection (14th Amendment to the Constitution) if it is applied in a discriminatory fashion. Government action also violates principles of equal protection if it is motivated by discriminatory animus and its application results in discriminatory effect.

Remember when I first tried to teach you about animus, I said something like: Motive matters most. Well, "motive/motivation" is animus.

Oh, hell. Searching, BRB!

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/03/ftp423/#comment-93418

There you go. ^^^^^ See if what I wrote then isn't how the courts have ruled so far.

So the SCOTUS now? I think they'll find a way to not rule on it. Just my 2 cents.

Now... onward. :p

it's not a law, it's an executive order. the text of the order is constitutionally ambiguous, i.e. open to interpretation. if donald hadn't made and withdrawn an earlier executive order, and hadn't made any public statements about either, his lawyers could argue that it was based solely on legitimate security issues, and they might or might not be successful in that argument.

this brings us back to the parking the car analogy. if there's no apparent context for why you're parking your car in a certain location, you can claim you were parking there to pick up groceries, fill a prescription, whatever, and nobody has evidence to the contrary. if you say you're going to park it there so a bank robber can use it as a getaway car, that reason is out there and there's no going back from it.

JL

OK.. NOW we're getting somewhere...

probably. the lower court rulings laid out a compelling case that the ban was grounded in discriminatory religious animus, which is unconstitutional.

So, if President Trump hadn't made any of those statements, then the law in your eyes would be constitutional...

Is that accurate???

Do you know that is was Obama who created the list that President Trump is working from???

Do you know the criteria of that list??

people wager on just about ANYTHING, including a single touchdown, a field goal a safety or even a blocked extra point...

You claim that the ban won't be re-instated or go into effect...

Yet you won't say the reasoning BEHIND that belief..

And THAT is where the goal posts are...

Many claims from lesser minds have stated that the ban is unconstitutional..

Do you believe that??

Other claims from OTHER lesser mind have stated that the President doesn't have the authority to restrict travel from certain countries..

Do you believe that??

You have stated that one of President Trump's tweets must have pissed off the Justices.. Implying the Justices would rule against the President (unanimously even possibly) because their feelings are hurt...

But my entire argument is the constitutionality and the authority of the President..

If the SCOTUS addresses my argument, then we can have a wager... But if the SCOTUS something technical that DOESN'T address the constitutionality or the authority question, I don't see how you can construe that as a "win"...

probably. the lower court rulings laid out a compelling case that the ban was grounded in discriminatory religious animus, which is unconstitutional.

Is it beyond the President's authority???

probably not. the president's powers are extremely broad in scope, so essentially anything that isn't unconstitutional is legal.

the key question as i see it is motive. parking your car on the street to bring home groceries is legal. parking your car on the street so it can be used as a thief's getaway car is not legal. same action, different reason, different legal outcome.

JL

Oh, another lie so soon. I didn't promise anything.

Yes, another lie so soon from you...

..... keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/02/ftp439/#comment-101693

No equivocation.. Nothing about public or private..

You said that there WILL be a "bombshell" coming out of the hearing...

And you were WRONG!!! :D

And then you tried to lie about it and claim you never said it...

You were wrong and you are lying...

There are the facts........ :D

PWNED!!!

i'll make the wager anyway if you want, but i'll call you chicken for refusing to accept the outcome unless it conforms to your two selected rationales.

when people bet they generally wager on which side wins, not whether it happens by touchdown, field goal, safety or blocked extra point.

JL

But that is the whole point.

WHY will the ban be not allowed to go into effect..

Is it unconstitutional???

Is it beyond the President's authority???

Is it mean???

You want to bet on what.... But the more important question is not what, but WHY....

Oh.. Where are those "bombshells" you promised us???

Oh, another lie so soon. I didn't promise anything. Go back and read it. I said if they are allowed to testify in public. They have chosen NOT to testify in public. I can't blame them, actually. I'd probably do the same thing. It will come out, though.

Rachel Maddow scooped part of it last night, and they clammed up like mollusks. If you weren't such a snowflake, you could learn something from me... but, alas... you can't seem to handle the truth. :)

Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong!!??? :D

You lying about me in your posts makes you wrong about... hmmmmmm... 90% of the time! BUT.... in answer to your question: Me and Michael Jordan don't ever get tired of taking shots and missing because... and I have this on good authority... that makes us all badasses.

And now... onward... to the latest thread. :p

:D

OK, I get it now... I wanted to bet on the question of constitutionality and authority...

You just want to bet that, somehow, someway, the ban won't go in effect...

Yea, we're talking two different issues/questions here...

Oh well..... :D

So, you are stating for the record that the SCOTUS will rule the ban unconstitutional and that the President doesn't have the authority to institute the ban...

If you are so sure, then why not make the wager???

Because for me, that has always been the question...

So, what you call "hedging" is nothing more than cementing the goal posts in place so they can't be moved once the SCOTUS rules.. :D

I'm not reluctant at all, and quite confident that the lower court decisions will be upheld. if you want to hedge your bet that's your prerogative, I'm just calling you a bit chicken for insisting upon it.

JL

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong!!??? :D

Seriously, though. Have a nice day! :)

AGAIN with the send-off... How can I miss you if you never leave?? :D

*LOL* No, you got to all those others who aren't here anymore. I'm still here. Besides, I'm not the one who whined like a toddler and left sulking to go and find my safe space when another poster agreed with JL about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Benedict Donald making similar speeches. :)

While I won't speak for him, *I* find it sad and pathetic that you are STILL trying to drag JL into your flame war...

Whatsamatter, Victoria?? Need help?? :D hehehehehe

I know, I know.. Safety in numbers and all that.. But I wouldn't have thought you were such a fragile snowflake that you can't handle me on your own..

Ahhh well, live and learn...

I'll quit beating up on you so hard if that will help you make it thru the day... :D

Nope.. Just once bitten... numerous times bitten, I get a little obfuscation shy.. :D

But I am actually surprised.. If you are so sure that the SCOTUS will rule the ban unconstitutional or that the President doesn't have the authority....

I am somewhat mystified by your reluctance...

Jeezus, you are really long-winded when you get caught... :D

Feel free to NOT read my posts.

I really must have gotten to you...

*LOL* No, you got to all those others who aren't here anymore. I'm still here. Besides, I'm not the one who whined like a toddler and left sulking to go and find my safe space when another poster agreed with JL about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Benedict Donald making similar speeches. :)

But I digress... Ahem... If you're going to keep making up things that I never said and lying to other posters about me and/or my nonexistent Party affiliation in nearly every post, then don't insist that my posts contain PROOF and FACTS about someone who is neither of us while yours contain repetitive lies about one of us.

Seriously, words can't hurt you unless you're really a snowflake. What I say about Trump is not an insult to you. If you insist on taking my posts about Trump and turning them into discussions about me personally that are laced with lies, then it shouldn't surprise you in the least when posts turn personal.

Seriously, though. Have a nice day! :)

If that's the way you want to characterize it, that's fine....

But I have been here over ten years, same as you, and I have seen the lengths ya'all will go to to equivocate and obfuscate the point... Especially when ya'all lose... :D

The hysterical screams of VANITY VOTE!!! in the aftermath of the election proves that.. :D

The question before is is Is the Travel Ban A> Constitutional and B> within the authority of the POTUS..

You say the answer to both is NO..

I say the answer to both is YES...

If the SCOTUS doesn't answer those questions, then no one can win the bet...

If you want to call that a "hedge" then I'll accept that...

I gave you an example of another possible outcome...

The SCOTUS rules that the time limit has elapsed so no ruling is required...

That's a push because it doesn't answer the question that's in dispute...

The ban is reinstated you win, it isn't i win,

Not exactly...

SCOTUS has to rule on the question.. It's a very real possibility that the SCOTUS can say that YES, the President has the authority to issue the ban and YES the ban is constitutional, but since the time-frame is expired, SCOTUS won't allow the ban to be reinstated...

In that very possible scenario, the ban is NOT reinstated but I win the bet because the SCOTUS affirmed the authority of the POTUS and affirmed that the ban was well within the constitution...

If Lakoff’s theory is true, the failure of the most influential elements of the U.S. media to exercise proper news judgment when assessing Trump’s tweets has had a greater negative impact on the country’s political discourse than is appreciated.

Consider, for example, Trump’s inscrutable “negative press covfefe” tweet early in the morning of May 31, a term that currently has 52 million search results on Google. It’s easy to see why: Print and broadcast news outlets pounced on the abbreviated tweet and hyperventilated for days.

This is precisely the problem: Most of Trump’s tweets, especially this sort, should not be reported as breaking news. As Michael Barone, the longtime co-editor of The Almanac of American Politics and senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, points out, “Early on, he [Trump] realized that by sending out a tweet early in the morning, that was very provocative, very in violation of political correctness, he could dominate an entire news cycle.” What’s more, Trump knew he could feed the media’s “addiction” to anything remotely resembling “breaking news,” all to his benefit.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/07/the_media_have_been_played_by_trumps_tweets.html

This is the exact point that NONE of ya'all get...

Ya'all are being played by Trump.

Trump sends out a tweet that says JUMP!!! and ya'all hysterically reply with HOW HIGH??!! on yer way up...

Ya'all are playing Trump's game and he is devastating ya'all at it..

Just straightforward and easy to understand plain english...

Here is the question as I see it..

It's two-fold..

Does President Trump have the authority to issue this travel ban...

Is the travel ban as written constitutional..

If the SCOTUS rules in the affirmative to both and reinstates the ban, then I win the bet...

If the SCOTUS rules in the negative and allows the ban of the ban to continue, then you win the bet...

Any other outcome is a push...

Jeezus, you are really long-winded when you get caught... :D

I really must have gotten to you...

PWNED.. :D

what kind of hedge is that?

It's a logical hedge..

Do you remember David's and my bet??? The question was whether or not the TrainWreckCare mandate was constitutional.. The SCOTUS side-stepped that question, changed the mandate to a tax and then ruled on THAT question...

Technically I won the bet, but I gave it to him...

In this case, here is an example..

The SCOTUS rules that, since the time frame has expired, it's a moot point and the Administration has to issue a new law for them to rule..

Basically, my "hedge" is that the SCOTUS has to address the question...

Does President Trump have the authority to issue this travel ban, regardless of any campaign rhetoric...

If the SCOTUS doesn't answer that question, then there can be no clear winner of any bet...

You get caught posting bullshit accusation after bullshit accusation and then get all whiney when you are called on it...

Forget about the FACT that I didn't actually say what you told JL... let's change the subject and make it about something else, right? So you're going with I "get caught"? Oh, I see. How dare I "get caught" posting something you didn't like. How sad for you that everyone here doesn't worship at the alter of Benedict Donald. Since you've been here so long, you've obviously figured out eons before now that you're the only Trump CH [props to Stephen Colbert] and that the majority of other posters are probably not going to be posting to suit your tastes. Feel free to NOT read my posts if you can't handle them.

Or maybe if you paid attention instead of whining about the contents of the posts you don't like, you might learn something that's not exactly public yet. Did it ever occur to you that somebody out there might know something you don't or have a source that you don't? I'm guessing NOT... because you seem to have made it your life's work to play board police... your holster at the ready in defense of The Don.

You never have ANY facts to support your accusation and you think you can get away with it because, after all, it's attack Trump and everyone here hates Trump....

"Get away with it"? Oh, you got me there, occifer. How dare me to "get caught" trying to "get away with" exercising my right of free speech. What are you afraid of? It's just words. They won't actually hurt you. Feel free to NOT read my posts if you can't handle them; they're not for you anyway. :)

Yer just another Kathy Griffin holding up a severed Trump head and don't expect ANY repercussions from it..

Oh, I am "caught" with an opinion, just when I thought I was going to get away with exercising my right of free speech on Chris Weigant's comment section. That is EXACTLY like holding up a bleeding severed Trump head. /sarcasm off *LOL*

I have been here a long time and have seen many like you come and go...

TRANSLATION: I ran them off, but you won't leave and you keep posting and posting, and I don't have the discipline to NOT read your posts and/or hijack them and bastardize them in trolling fashion.

Yer just another hater who is driven solely by Party slavery and zealotry....

Two things:
(1) Hate requires passion. We reserve passion for joyful things... comes from decades of training.
(2) You've been doing it a very long time now, but you got this routine down where you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a Democratic Party bigot. It is the height of naivete to assume that everyone who is anti-Trump is a Democrat, but since when did you mind looking ignorant and naive? I can't remember a time that you minded looking naive or repeating lies about me in nearly every single post you make... all whilst simultaneously demanding PROOF and FACTS.

Anyway, some of my very best buddies are both anti-Trump and Republicans, and then there are those like me who are anti-Trump and NPA and some Independents, but yes, some of them actually are Democrats, but the thing that has brought us together in unison at this time in history is Benedict Donald. Yes, we actually have Trump to thank for something. :)

what kind of hedge is that? technicalities are all that exists on either side of the legal issue.

JL

Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?

i guess colbert was right when he said that reality has a left wing bias. if she could do a naughty magazine spread, the puns would flow even more freely. reality exposed!

JL

Yes, I knew that is not what you meant..

But it is undeniable that it is what you said..

You must have a very low opinion of the Justices..
If THAT is all you have, I am a lot more secure in my position now.. :D

bet's on then?

As long as the decision settles the actual question and doesn't rule on a technicality, the bet is on..

that's not what i meant at all, but i think you knew that. the text of the ban is somewhat more ambiguous than the prior version, which is what, in theory, MIGHT have made it stand up to constitutional scrutiny if it existed in a bubble outside of any context of reality. what undermines the ban is not what party donald belongs to, it's the context he has explicitly provided.

What you are talking about it marketing and I don't think Justice Kennedy would stoop to be affected by marketing...

you've got that a bit backward. administration lawyers were "marketing" the ban as something less constitutionally objectionable than it is. while it's possible that you're right and kennedy wouldn't have been swayed into thinking that it was something less restrictive than it is, donald blew a hole in his own marketing with his tweets.

You must have a very low opinion of the Justices..
If THAT is all you have, I am a lot more secure in my position now.. :D

bet's on then?

JL

But it goes to the heart of Left's anti-Trump hysteria AND the (illegal) lengths the Left will go to to hurt Trump and, by extension, this country...

I know nothing about that, I wish to know nothing more about that.

A problem? Oh, yeah, I have a problem with this sad excuse for attention by a sad excuse for a family.

HIS parents must not have like him much either.. :D

heh

I live in a region where hippie names are pretty common for anyone under the age of 40. Lots of "Rainbow"s, lots of other such creative monikers.

The problem is, is that the Democrat Party is trying to shy away from it's hippie anti-military anti-cop persona...

Having an activist that epitomizes the Left's Anti-Trump hysteria named "Reality" kinda makes such disassociation that much harder....

Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?

Problem???

No, not really...

But she sounds more like a horse in the Belmont Stakes, not a scumbag traitor and terrorist sympathizer...

:D

It's really simple...

All you need to do is A> quit making personal attacks and quit with the immature name-calling and B> when you make an accusation, have some FACTS to back it up...

It really can't be any simpler than that...

You do that and we can have real, meaningful and adult conversations and Liz will be ecstatic..

But if all you want to do is throw around bullshit and lies and name-calling..

Then that's all you get...

Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa libel Waaaaaaa lie waaaaaaaa

:D PWNED...

Let's face reality here, Victoria..

You get caught posting bullshit accusation after bullshit accusation and then get all whiney when you are called on it...

You never have ANY facts to support your accusation and you think you can get away with it because, after all, it's attack Trump and everyone here hates Trump....

Yer just another Kathy Griffin holding up a severed Trump head and don't expect ANY repercussions from it..

I have been here a long time and have seen many like you come and go...

Yer just another hater who is driven solely by Party slavery and zealotry....

You keep asking for honesty on the boards while you post freely and say whatever made up bullshit you please. I saw what you posted about me to JL and deliberately decided to treat you in the same manner you treated me.

You didn't like it much. Go figure!

I have no need to make up lies about Trump as long as you're around to hijack my posts and bastardize them and do it for me... because FACTS matter to you so much, and you go about proving it by libeling me to JL. *LOL*

I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this.. :D

I'm fine, sugar. You just hit my comedy nerve. I'll stop laughing at your ignorance in a few hours. If you honestly think lying about one poster to another poster is hitting "close to the mark," then you're actually way more ignorant than you come off in print.

Oh, seriously... one more thing. You are so like Trump. You've created a world where facts don't matter and behavior cannot be called to account. Everything is debatable and gets hijacked and twisted, but you would be quite foolish if you thought everyone didn't see right through it... because it's totally transparent.

Have a nice day. :)

There, now ya'all don't have to respond.. :D

Just a hint...

You are trying too hard...

Best to remain silent and have people THINK you are a fool rather than actually post something and remove all doubt.. :D

JL, I'm not Veronica

Actually, you are... But, once again, why let FACTS intrude on yer hysterical pity-party...

but the guy who keeps saying how much facts matter to him can't seem to get that through his confused brain. Nowhere in any of my posts do I say anything remotely like this made up garbage by Michale... nowhere.

Actually, you did.. Since you are on record as saying that Trump is a Putin/Russian stooge, one can assume you believe that Trump is interchangeable with Russia..

This is what happens when you have nothing but fact-less hysteria..

While CW was on the board live, I deliberately decided to turn the tables on him and see how he liked being treated in the same manner he treated me (but without accusing him of saying something that he didn't actually say)... well, look how that turned out.

VICTORIA TRANSLATION:

I was hoping to cajole CW into my childish and immature flame war, but I got caught because my attempts were so transparent...

He didn't much like that little taste of his own medicine. ;)

You kidding?? I LOVED it!!! :D

Because it proved to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt how lame and desperate you are.. :D

Apologies that Michale feels the need to invoke my name (well, actually NOT my name but someone else named Veronica) and make stuff up that I didn't say.

Says the whiner who has invoked my name over 50 times in this one commentary alone.. :D THREE times in just this one single comment!! :D

So, when it comes to invoking one's name..

Looks like you win that award, Veronica... :D

Regarding the post at [128] wherein Michale says: "I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...

Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..

JL, I'm not Veronica but the guy who keeps saying how much facts matter to him can't seem to get that through his confused brain. Nowhere in any of my posts do I say anything remotely like this made up garbage by Michale... nowhere. I don't know why he feels the need to pull me into your discussion and make things up that I never said.

While CW was on the board live, I deliberately decided to turn the tables on him and see how he liked being treated in the same manner he treated me (but without accusing him of saying something that he didn't actually say)... well, look how that turned out.

He didn't much like that little taste of his own medicine. ;)

Apologies that Michale feels the need to invoke my name (well, actually NOT my name but someone else named Veronica) and make stuff up that I didn't say.

Hope you are well. :)

I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this.. :D

PWNED..... :D

VERONICA TRANSLATION:

Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

PWNED... :D

At [135] you hijacked [133] and butchered it and twisted it, and now you want to act like it was a discussion about a post from yesterday. Not EVEN a good try... so transparent... so lame.

You simply can't allow anyone to post without hijacking it and bastardizing it, can you? It's what you do. You posted a boatload of things to JL about me that I never said, while at the same time taking issue with my inability to post facts about Trump. Poor you, Michale.

You're making shit up about me to other posters while at the same time taking issue with me saying things you don't like about Trump. The only flaw in your logic is: I didn't say the things about Trump that you made up.

Now maybe do you see the problem? Try really hard and maybe it'll come to you. *LOL* :)

Says the person who thinks I am talking about the CNN article when, in fact I was talking about your immature personal attack in the comment BEFORE your CNN comment..

Not even a nice try. The CNN article I posted with no commentary is the only one that mentions Qatar. So kindly direct me to the place in the preceding comment where I say anything that remotely resembles anything about (quoting you) "President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing."

Yer losing it, Victoria....

Oh, really. If it's me who's "losing it," you will naturally be able to point me to the place in either of those posts where I say anything that remotely resembles that baseless bullshit you posted and attributed to me. Knock yourself out, but you won't find it because I never said it... so it's clearly you who is losing it. Call the wambulance. :)

Says the person who posts hysterical bullshit with absolutely NO BASIS in fact whatsoever... :D

Oh, no. You mean a poster is not posting to suit you? You poor thing. It must be so hard to come to the realization that this ain't your safe space. It must hurt you so much to be reading a Democratic blog and find people who don't worship at the altar of your idol. :)

And your reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. It wasn't a response to anything.

Yes, it does rear it's ugly head..

Kick wrote:
Michale
74

The only "facts" or "arguments" I need is that "house troll" answered when called... such a good slave.

It's a response to me.. There it is in plain black and white english...

So, you want to talk to me about reading comprehension??

No one can post anything to someone else without you hijacking it and mischaracterizing it, whining about its contents, and then butchering it to suit yourself. You simply can't allow anyone to post anything to another poster because that's what house trolls do. They hijack posts, twist around words, impede the flow of dialogue of others, and whine like a baby about what everyone else is posting... all while carrying on in exactly the way they please and making up whatever bullshit they want... with seemingly zero self-awareness whatsoever. :)

Would you want some cheese to go with your whine, Victoria???

Maybe I should call the WAAAAAAAAmbulance because you are clearly losing it....

:D

You have NOTHING but personal attacks and immature name-calling.. Then you try and drag CW into your disgusting game...

Yer such a class act... :^/

VICTORIA TRANSLATION:

I have no facts or rational response so I am just going to resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks and try to drag CW into my childish and immature flame war...

And your reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. It wasn't a response to anything. It was a statement that in no way requested a response from anyone, but... as usual... you had to hijack my post and twist it around into something it wasn't meant to be because that's what house trolls do.

No one can post anything to someone else without you hijacking it and mischaracterizing it, whining about its contents, and then butchering it to suit yourself. You simply can't allow anyone to post anything to another poster because that's what house trolls do. They hijack posts, twist around words, impede the flow of dialogue of others, and whine like a baby about what everyone else is posting... all while carrying on in exactly the way they please and making up whatever bullshit they want... with seemingly zero self-awareness whatsoever. :)

You seem to..

ALL of your accusations against Trump are based on NOTHING but anonymous sources.. Not a SINGLE fact to be found in ANY of your rantings..

And you complain about MY 'baseless' claims??

Now THAT's funny!! :D

You're losing it, dude.

Says the person who thinks I am talking about the CNN article when, in fact I was talking about your immature personal attack in the comment BEFORE your CNN comment..

Yer losing it, Victoria....

You keep asking for honesty from everyone else while you post whatever unhinged bullshit you please.

Says the person who posts hysterical bullshit with absolutely NO BASIS in fact whatsoever... :D

I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...

You're losing it, dude. Your dementia is on display, and you clearly have no ability to read and comprehend the written word. I posted a CNN article and supplied a link. There is ZERO commentary there. There is nothing in the article saying remotely the shit you made up there.

Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..

It's a link to a CNN article, and it doesn't say any of the shit you're making up. You just got through bragging about how you'll admit when you're wrong, and you follow that up by making up baseless bullshit regarding things that never happened. What rant are you referring to? I posted a link and words directly from a CNN article that say nothing like you're describing.

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously when you just make up baseless claims like this? Seriously.

You keep asking for honesty from everyone else while you post whatever unhinged bullshit you please.

:-)

"You too!!??? You too!!!??"
-Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK III

:D

Since you are up and around, I was hoping you could take a look at this..

====================================
michale [53] -

So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?

I'll answer your question WITH a question... (anyone else, feel free to chime in..)

Do you know the parameters of the list?? By that I mean, do you know exactly WHY Odumbo put those countries on the list???

When you discover that, you will have your answer as to why SA is not on the list...
=========================================

Seems that no one wants to answer this because it PROVES their opposition to the immigration restriction is based on NOTHING but Party loyalty...

I figured you probably just missed it.. :D

"Once or twice"? Really? That's what you're going to go with?

Wow.

OK, then we have officially parted with the reality of this blog. Do you really want me to do a full database search?

I thought not.

OK, in general, that's it for me tonight. Gotta to to bed now, will respond to further comments later...

-CW

VICTORIA TRANSLATION:

I have no facts or rational response so I am just going to resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks and try to drag CW into my childish and immature flame war...

Newsworthiness is in the eye of the beholder...

I mentioned it once or twice.. And that was it..

Ya'all have been screaming about it for days and devoted an entire commentary to it...

Don't you honestly believe that is somewhat obsessive??

Yes, the old man truly is showing signs of dementia. Who the hell is Veronica? If he'd just stick to using my commenter name, he wouldn't come off as mentally challenged and in the throes of dementia... so like his Orange Crush. :)

Michale at [125] said: But fer christ's sake.. Be a little more discriminating in ya'all's behavior..

It's obvious what's going on here to anyone reading and comprehending. Michale is trying to mold this place into a safe space. ;) *LOL*

our "Dear Leader" is saying differently. According to him, the "politically correct" term "TRAVEL BAN" is not even macho enough, because he flat-out promised a "Muslim Ban" on the campaign trail.

And NOT-45 promised "open borders"... NOW ya'all claim that she said no such thing..

Why is Trump held to campaign rhetoric, but NOT-45 is not??

Ah yes... The infamous -R and the awe-inpsiring -D.... :D

"Ahh yes, the raktajeno.. A vital clue"
-Dr Bashir, STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE, Trials and Tribble-lations

:D

So, I have to ask -- who is our Brutus? Who is our Marc Antony?

Inquiring minds want to know...

-CW

The difference is obvious. It's between "what might have been" and "actual reality."

Which doesn't change the fact (there's that word again :D) that ya'all are PERFECTLY OK with a leader who has their finger on the nuclear button and shows signs of dementia...

BUT ONLY as long as that leader has a -D after their name.. :D

If there is another logical conclusion that fits the data???

"I'm all ears.."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Election Debate

This proves the main point the original article made.

Nothing any "Trump advisor" says is "operable" because Trump himself might contradict it in a tweet.

Multiple Trump "White House spokesmen" went out in front of the cameras to proclaim "it's not a travel ban" for WEEKS on end. Then Trump threw them all under a bus.

As for how he undercuts his own case, well, I leave that as an exercise for the student. As time goes by, you'll understand this aspect of it,
I'm sure.

-CW

My apologies....

JL,

I would have thought you would have learned your lesson when you got burned by the fake WaPoop story about Trump leaking intelligence to the Russians or the fake CNN story that Kushner tried to create a back-channel to the Russians..

I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...

Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..

My sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding...

Say what? Do tell! Got a link?

*LOL* Okay, now... the operative words there were supposed to be:

My buddies and me are getting real well known /
Yeah, the bad guys know us and they leave us alone. ;)