Trump’s Travel Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

[big_country90]

https://articles.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2018/06/trump_travel_ban_upheld_by_sup.amp

As stated by many of us months ago, the president has broad authority on immigration. The Constitution gives him that authority. Today confirmed that.

I’m not tired of winning yet, but I’m getting close.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

No, no, no. This is a revised ban, as his original attempts were struck down.

Claiming this as some sort of victory would be like me betting somebody that I was going to play big league baseball, then instead, playing whiffle ball in my backyard while chewing Big League Chew, and then claiming that I was right.

Are you guys really too stupid to understand this? Then, to claim the “we told you so” line cements the stupidity, as his previous attempts of bans had to be changed in numerous way because they were unconstitutional.

 

[big_country90]

No immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional. This ruling proves that. It was revised based off of a lower court’s ruling, but any ban that actually made it to the Supreme Court would have passed.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

BC, take it easy on Rifle. He's not used to all this winning, being that he's a Met's fan.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

No immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional.

The more you post here, I really hope you just troll. No way a banker could be this goddamn stupid...unless cocaine.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

No immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional. This ruling proves that. It was revised based off of a lower court’s ruling, but any ban that actually made it to the Supreme Court would have passed.

Jesus. The stupidity has reached a new low around here.

I don’t want to spend five minutes proving why you are once again wrong, but just let it be known, that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[dherd]

they've been conned so many times that it is becoming a natural thing for them to do.
they think everyone is as gullible and ignorant of facts as they are.
after six tries I could have gotten the language right.

 

[big_country90]

The more you post here, I really hope you just troll. No way a banker could be this goddamn stupid...unless cocaine.

Sticks and stones man. Read the Immigration and Naturalization Act and get back to me.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

[big_country90]

Jesus. The stupidity has reached a new low around here.

I don’t want to spend five minutes proving why you are once again wrong, but just let it be known, that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

That’s how you admit defeat, folks.

 

[WV-FAN]

That’s how you admit defeat, folks.

he's lying, anyhow. you know it'd take him a least 10 minutes to type out one of those diatribes.

 

[big_country90]

Yep. I mean here we have one person (me) citing a law that’s over 60 years old AND a Supreme Court decision as proof of my claim, while on the other hand we have two bitter leftists calling me stupid.

Yep...

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

I wonder if we'll see anything change due to the ongoing talks with North Korea.

I believe they were part of that ban.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Sticks and stones man. Read the Immigration and Naturalization Act and get back to me.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Too stupid to cite the section. I think you yourself didn't read the law you cite...you just copypasted this from some talking points or dipshit blog.

Read today's decision and get back to me. There's actually some legal questions discussed pointing to POTUS may not do whatever he wishes.

Who am I kidding....you ain't reading shit...never have, never will.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I wonder if we'll see anything change due to the ongoing talks with North Korea.

I believe they were part of that ban.

They were. And we should, since Trump says they are already no longer a threat of any kind. Let them all in.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

This is great so I am right to assume no more Saudi’s, Nigerians, Tunisians and Malaysians will be coming in since those are the worst of the worst isis breeding countries. Great news.

 

[big_country90]

Too stupid to cite the section. I think you yourself didn't read the law you cite...you just copypasted this from some talking points or dipshit blog.

Read today's decision and get back to me. There's actually some legal questions discussed pointing to POTUS may not do whatever he wishes.

Who am I kidding....you ain't reading shit...never have, never will.

#MAGA

Keep crying.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

#MAGA

Keep crying.

Yep, trolling. Go back to the Eer board, you're drunk.

 

[ThunderCat98]

No, no, no. This is a revised ban, as his original attempts were struck down.

. . .

Are you guys really too stupid to understand this? Then, to claim the “we told you so” line cements the stupidity, as his previous attempts of bans had to be changed in numerous way because they were unconstitutional.

Do tell. I, for one, would be interested in hearing the facts you're relying on in support of this position.

 

[big_country90]

Yep, trolling. Go back to the Eer board, you're drunk.

Calling me stupid and asking me why I didn’t cite the section of the law as opposed to simply quoting the relevant text that I have quoted on here 3-4 other times might make you feel better about yourself, but doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

The law is clear about this, and has been for a long time. The president can restrict or ban any foreigner any time he sees fit. Rather than calling me names, how about proving me wrong?

 

[herdfan06]

No immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional. This ruling proves that. It was revised based off of a lower court’s ruling, but any ban that actually made it to the Supreme Court would have passed.

Then why cave into the Liberal Judges in the lower court?

 

[ThunderCat98]

Still waiting to hear about the "numerous ways" prior bans have been changed because they were "struck down" by the courts.

Keep in mind that "numerous" means "great numbers."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerous

Oh, and before you go there, twice by the same partisan hack "judge" in hawaii isn't "numerous."

Also, to be intellectually honest, let's only include provisions that were "struck down" that were actually upheld on review and aren't currently pending further appellate review.

 

[WV-FAN]

Yep, trolling. Go back to the Eer board, you're drunk.

Ahhhh, the fuktup lib in you continues to protrude. Don't like what you hear, derogatory label.

 

[herdfan06]

Ahhhh, the fuktup lib in you continues to protrude. Don't like what you hear, derogatory label.

Eer board is derogatory?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

That’s how you admit defeat, folks.

At some point, intelligence has to start kicking in for you. You have no legal experience. You've never taken the LSAT. You weren't admitted to a top 10 (at the time) law school. You don't follow legal cases. Clearly, you don't read court opinions or judgements (I am keeping the first "e"). You also don't have the common sense to understand how the court even works. I'll explain below.

Yep. I mean here we have one person (me) citing a law that’s over 60 years old AND a Supreme Court decision as proof of my claim, while on the other hand we have two bitter leftists calling me stupid.

Yep...

You're too dumb to take the time to read the majority opinion. If you had, you would see that the decision (at least the opinions of Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy) not only doesn't prove your claim, as you stated, but their opinions actually refute your very claim.

At no point do any of the concurring opinions even remotely hint that the president can do what you claim. In fact, they all acknowledge that the comments cheeto made regarding Muslims could play a part in determining if this ban violates the Establishment Clause:

Thomas: " . . . the plaintiffs' proferred evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination is unpersuasive."

As you can see, Thomas doesn't claim that any type of discriminatory comments are irrelevant. He doesn't claim that the president could ban immigrants based on religion. He believes that any type of anti-Muslim rhetoric from cheeto wasn't shown to be his reason for this ban. That argument, he claims, was unpersuasive. If what you claim is true - that any ban would have passed and that no immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional - Thomas wouldn't have stated that the argument of discrimination against Muslims was unpersuasive, as it wouldn't have mattered.

Roberts: "The text [of the order] says nothing about religion."

He went on to say that the directive was "neutral on its face." Again, if "no immigration ban from the president is unconstitutional," these arguments and statements by the justices would be entirely irrelevant. They would have no reason to argue that the directive doesn't mention religion, is "neutral on its face" regarding religion, etc., since those things wouldn't matter. According to you, the president would be allowed to ban an entire religion. Clearly, that isn't the case if these justices are arguing that the directive is not focused on religion, thus doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.

Perhaps the most scathing response to cheeto was by Kennedy. Even though he voted along party lines and joined his fellow Republicans, check out what he said:

Kennedy: "There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects. The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even comment upon what those officials say or do. Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts."

The fact that you aren't enlightened enough to realize that a 5-4 opinion based on strict party lines doesn't prove something one way or the other is indicative of what I am working with in discussing this with you. If Congress had done their job over a full year and not blocked the Obama nominee after Scalia's death, this would have easily been a 5-4 ruling the other way.

The fact that you claim the ban was "revised off a lower court's ruling" but any version would have passed the SCOTUS is proof of your illogical argument. If any version would have passed, why would the White House have bothered revising any of them regardless of what the lower court's ruled? If destined for the SCOTUS, there would be no need to revise any of them at any point.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Keep in mind that "numerous" means "great numbers."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerous

I feel like some of you try so hard to try to be intelligent, but you just don't have the ability. "Great numbers" is quite ambiguous. If a woman went to a party and had sex with four guys that night, would you deem it fair to claim that she had sex with "numerous" guys that night? I think most people would have no problem using that as an accurate description. Yet four doesn't seem like a "great number" just on its face, right?

Still waiting to hear about the "numerous ways" prior bans have been changed because they were "struck down" by the courts.

'

Original: cheeto's first attempt banned travel from seven majority-Muslim countries. It was struck down. cheeto fires the attorney general for refusing to defend the ban.

2) The new attempt lowered the number of effected countries to six, all majority-Muslim again. The new attempt also changed so that legal permanent residents wouldn't need the waiver put in place in the original ban. It also changed the "indefinitely" ban to 90 days for some countries and 120 days for other countries. It was struck down.

3) The new attempt bumps up the countries to eight; after having courts rule that the previous attempts showed extreme bias towards Muslims ("tainted with animus toward Islam"), cheeto added in two minority-Muslim countries to the list as a way to argue it wasn't based on Islam. The two countries? North Korea, who doesn't allow its citizens to travel to the U.S., and Venezuela who only would have been top government officials.

These changes were all made in order to give it a better chance to not be blocked by multiple courts that had done it.

I'm not sure what part of my quoted comment you're challenging. This isn't really anything that is debatable. The ban was modified multiple times in order to try and get it through without being blocked by courts.

 

[big_country90]

Rifle...I'm fully aware of how split the Supreme Court is. But liberals on the court don't interpret the law for what it says. They rule based on what they want it to say, or whatever social action they want to implement. If not, they would see how cut and dry this is.

I see you avoided my comments about the Immigration and Naturalization Act altogether....

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

...want to explain that one away?

The fact that the majority ruled in favor of the ban despite Trump's rhetoric proves my point even further. He has the power, by law, to implement a ban on any alien for any reason for any length of time he deems fit. I'm sorry if that burns your crawl, but its reality. If calling me stupid and dumb like you have the last 15-20 times you've addressed me on here make your vagina hurt less, then I'm ok with that. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I feel like some of you try so hard to try to be intelligent, but you just don't have the ability. "Great numbers" is quite ambiguous. If a woman went to a party and had sex with four guys that night, would you deem it fair to claim that she had sex with "numerous" guys that night? I think most people would have no problem using that as an accurate description. Yet four doesn't seem like a "great number" just on its face, right?


'

Original: cheeto's first attempt banned travel from seven majority-Muslim countries. It was struck down. cheeto fires the attorney general for refusing to defend the ban.

2) The new attempt lowered the number of effected countries to six, all majority-Muslim again. The new attempt also changed so that legal permanent residents wouldn't need the waiver put in place in the original ban. It also changed the "indefinitely" ban to 90 days for some countries and 120 days for other countries. It was struck down.

3) The new attempt bumps up the countries to eight; after having courts rule that the previous attempts showed extreme bias towards Muslims ("tainted with animus toward Islam"), cheeto added in two minority-Muslim countries to the list as a way to argue it wasn't based on Islam. The two countries? North Korea, who doesn't allow its citizens to travel to the U.S., and Venezuela who only would have been top government officials.

These changes were all made in order to give it a better chance to not be blocked by multiple courts that had done it.

I'm not sure what part of my quoted comment you're challenging. This isn't really anything that is debatable. The ban was modified multiple times in order to try and get it through without being blocked by courts.

I'll make this short and sweet.

First, three changes or tweaks aren't "numerous" by any definition of the word. Admit that you were just using hyperbole to try and bolster your position.

Second, the travel ban was never "struck down" by any court. Multiple injunctions were issued against it staying enforcement, but I'm sure your brilliant legal mind knows that an injunction isn't a ruling on the merits, but rather a hold put in place so that the merits can be argued. Even the 9th circuit just upheld the stay. SCOTUS shot down those injunctions in December.

Now, as BC pointed out, they have finally ruled on the merits and, as it turns out, the travel ban does not violate the Constitution as you and others have argued.

Here's a timeline of events and rulings:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...mp-travel-ban-timeline-legal-journey.amp.html

 

[sistersville]

Trump won that round. Denying it only makes the right laugh even more

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Don't like what you hear, derogatory label.

Eer board is a derogatory label? Are you embarrassed of your own?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I see you avoided my comments about the Immigration and Naturalization Act altogether....

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

...want to explain that one away?
.

I didn't avoid it. I mistakenly gave you credit for knowing something that you clearly don't. I get sick of having to explain basic things to you, so at times, I assume you already know them to avoid having to further dumb things down.

Go read the Establishment Clause. Now, come back and tell us if that or the Immigration Act takes precedence. Then, study decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS to see how they have ruled in situations like that historically. They tend to vote based on a few different ways to interpret the Constitution. In this particular issue, the opinions of the Republican justices show that if they felt cheeto's order had a religion bias in it, they would act accordingly pertaining to the Establishment Clause. If that were not the case, they would have no reason to write that the order doesn't discuss any religion, is neutral on its face, that the argument showing cheeto's anti-Muslim discrimination is "unpersuasive," etc.

The fact that they are acknowledging all of those things as valid arguments against the order, if they felt those issues were present in the order, show that they would use the Establishment Clause as a way to defeat it and rule it unconstitutional. Their decision didn't say that the Establishment Clause doesn't count regarding the Immigration Act. Their opinions stated that cheeto's order wasn't a clear enough act of discrimination against a religion.

The fact that the majority ruled in favor of the ban despite Trump's rhetoric proves my point even further.
.

Jesus Christ, read the fvcking opinion, BC. It is about 90 pages, but much of those are fluff pages that you can skip through.

The ruling showed the exact opposite of what you're claiming. cheeto's rhetoric wasn't taken into consideration by the majority opinion because they felt the order didn't show any bias. Clarence Thomas stated that as clearly as possible. He said that the plaintiff (that would be those against cheeto's order) were unpersuasive in proving that cheeto had an anti-Muslim bias with this order. In other words, as is further supported by another justice, the decision isn't that the president can violate the Establishment Clause or any other part of the Constitution with the Immigration Act. The issue is if the president did violate the Establishment Clause. Based on the order not mentioning religion, as a justice stated, the discrimination argument was not persuasive. That is also why cheeto added in two non-Muslim majority countries in one of his revisions so that the discrimination wouldn't be so clear.

This isn't rocket science. If you took the fvcking time to read the decision, you could save me a lot of time from exposing your ignorance.

Once again for you - read slower this time: the majority opinion didn't claim that the Immigration Act supersedes the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion didn't claim that a president can throw out Constitutional protections with the Immigration Act. The opinion stated just the opposite and looked to see if the Immigration Act violated the Establishment Clause. Their opinion was that the argument that cheeto's order had religious discrimination was unfounded, not that it was irrelevant.

If what you are trying to argue was the opinion shared by the majority justices, their opinion would simply have been that the Establishment Clause nor any other Constitutional protection pertains to the Immigration Act. It would be that simple. Their opinions stated the exact opposite of that.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Calling me stupid and asking me why I didn’t cite the section of the law as opposed to simply quoting the relevant text that I have quoted on here 3-4 other times might make you feel better about yourself, but doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

The law is clear about this, and has been for a long time. The president can restrict or ban any foreigner any time he sees fit. Rather than calling me names, how about proving me wrong?

Rifle has already proven you wrong by citing the arguments and opinion of the case. It's like it your mind nothing in the case exists except for the vote. Maybe you really think that is how it works. And ThunderCat, having liked your illogical response, has me now doubting he is an attorney. Then again, if they will let anyone run a bank, they will give anyone a license to practice law, I guess.

 

[i am herdman]

Everyone list what law school they went to.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I didn't avoid it. I mistakenly gave you credit for knowing something that you clearly don't. I get sick of having to explain basic things to you, so at times, I assume you already know them to avoid having to further dumb things down.

Go read the Establishment Clause. Now, come back and tell us if that or the Immigration Act takes precedence. Then, study decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS to see how they have ruled in situations like that historically. They tend to vote based on a few different ways to interpret the Constitution. In this particular issue, the opinions of the Republican justices show that if they felt cheeto's order had a religion bias in it, they would act accordingly pertaining to the Establishment Clause. If that were not the case, they would have no reason to write that the order doesn't discuss any religion, is neutral on its face, that the argument showing cheeto's anti-Muslim discrimination is "unpersuasive," etc.

The fact that they are acknowledging all of those things as valid arguments against the order, if they felt those issues were present in the order, show that they would use the Establishment Clause as a way to defeat it and rule it unconstitutional. Their decision didn't say that the Establishment Clause doesn't count regarding the Immigration Act. Their opinions stated that cheeto's order wasn't a clear enough act of discrimination against a religion.



Jesus Christ, read the fvcking opinion, BC. It is about 90 pages, but much of those are fluff pages that you can skip through.

The ruling showed the exact opposite of what you're claiming. cheeto's rhetoric wasn't taken into consideration by the majority opinion because they felt the order didn't show any bias. Clarence Thomas stated that as clearly as possible. He said that the plaintiff (that would be those against cheeto's order) were unpersuasive in proving that cheeto had an anti-Muslim bias with this order. In other words, as is further supported by another justice, the decision isn't that the president can violate the Establishment Clause or any other part of the Constitution with the Immigration Act. The issue is if the president did violate the Establishment Clause. Based on the order not mentioning religion, as a justice stated, the discrimination argument was not persuasive. That is also why cheeto added in two non-Muslim majority countries in one of his revisions so that the discrimination wouldn't be so clear.

This isn't rocket science. If you took the fvcking time to read the decision, you could save me a lot of time from exposing your ignorance.

Once again for you - read slower this time: the majority opinion didn't claim that the Immigration Act supersedes the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion didn't claim that a president can throw out Constitutional protections with the Immigration Act. The opinion stated just the opposite and looked to see if the Immigration Act violated the Establishment Clause. Their opinion was that the argument that cheeto's order had religious discrimination was unfounded, not that it was irrelevant.

If what you are trying to argue was the opinion shared by the majority justices, their opinion would simply have been that the Establishment Clause nor any other Constitutional protection pertains to the Immigration Act. It would be that simple. Their opinions stated the exact opposite of that.

Don't bother. It's all a giant troll....or he really is this dumb. Either way, it's not worth the time to debate.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Everyone list what law school they went to.

Ifvcka Yomomma School of Law, in Chinatown.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

First, three changes or tweaks aren't "numerous" by any definition of the word. Admit that you were just using hyperbole to try and bolster your position.

If an ex-husband tried killing his estranged wife three different times, it would be accurate to claim that he tried "numerous times" to kill her. It wasn't hyperbole. The White House revised the plan numerous times.

Second, the travel ban was never "struck down" by any court. Multiple injunctions were issued against it staying enforcement, but I'm sure your brilliant legal mind knows that an injunction isn't a ruling on the merits, but rather a hold put in place so that the merits can be argued. Even the 9th circuit just upheld the stay. SCOTUS shot down those injunctions in December.

Take that up with the NY Times, ABC News, Vanity Fair, and numerous (that's an ambiguous term) other respectable outlets. An injunction is stopping something. That is a way to strike something down.

The fact that you're having to argue semantics about ambiguous phrases shows plenty.

Now, as BC pointed out, they have finally ruled on the merits and, as it turns out, the travel ban does not violate the Constitution as you and others have argued.

And a big part of that is due to the numerous revisions the White House made to the order so that the discrimination wouldn't be so obvious in it. Why else do you think they made the numerous revisions? They had to in order to make it court-friendly and avoid a greater chance of it being struck-down again.

Further, the justices voted along party lines. If Congress had done their job last year, they would have had to accept Obama's nominee instead of delaying 220+ days after Scalia's death. In that case, the court breakdown would have been 5-4 in favor of ruling the order unconstitutional. In other words, your opinion is simply based on what party you align with and not the actual merits of the challenge. You can simply read Kennedy's opinion to reach this conclusion as almost his entire opinion was a scathing attack on cheeto for going against his oath and being unconstitutional in his workings. However, being on the right, he had to align with the party line.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

You can simply read Kennedy's opinion

That ain't happening.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Rifle has already proven you wrong by citing the arguments and opinion of the case. It's like it your mind nothing in the case exists except for the vote. Maybe you really think that is how it works. And ThunderCat, having liked your illogical response, has me now doubting he is an attorney. Then again, if they will let anyone run a bank, they will give anyone a license to practice law, I guess.

No way ThunderCat is an attorney. Not that it surprises me, as I know plenty of attorneys who went to garbage schools who lack basic intelligence, but this one would surprise me.

If they both actually took the time to read the opinion, assuming they can understand it, they would both be like the South Park character in the Jeopardy episode after the puzzle is revealed as "naggers." "Oh, oh, yeah . . . naggers."

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Everyone list what law school they went to.

I was accepted into Georgetown immediately out of Marshall. At the time, Georgetown was a top 10 law school in the country. From memory, I believe they dropped down to a tie for 14th now. Clearly, me not matriculating there dropped them from top 10 to 14th.

The LSAT was taken in Athens the morning after the MAC Championship game in Toledo in December 2001. My acceptance was noted in a baseball publication the following semester, as I had initially planned on going straight to law school instead of playing football.

The fact that I was accepted into a top 10 law school shows that I have the aptitude to understand these opinions far more than people who don't even have the intelligence to read them before commenting on them.

 

[i am herdman]

I was accepted into Georgetown immediately out of Marshall. At the time, Georgetown was a top 10 law school in the country. From memory, I believe they dropped down to a tie for 14th now. Clearly, me not matriculating there dropped them from top 10 to 14th.

The LSAT was taken in Athens the morning after the MAC Championship game in Toledo in December 2001. My acceptance was noted in a baseball publication the following semester, as I had initially planned on going straight to law school instead of playing football.

The fact that I was accepted into a top 10 law school shows that I have the aptitude to understand these opinions far more than people who don't even have the intelligence to read them before commenting on them.

No, it shows you were accepted into law school. Good for you.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Take that up with the NY Times, ABC News, Vanity Fair, and numerous (that's an ambiguous term) other respectable outlets. An injunction is stopping something. That is a way to strike something down.

The fact that you're having to argue semantics about ambiguous phrases shows plenty.

"Struck down" isn't ambiguous. It means a law/order/regulation or other similar legally binding provision was overturned on the merits.

You're the one arguing "semantics" by saying it was "struck down," not once, but multiple times, which is patently false. Numeroys injunctions were issued. It has never been "struck down." In fact, it has now been upheld.