Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
comeonman wrote:Lol. Nice links! WaPo?! MSNBC?! Newsweek?! Do you ever leave your masters' misinformation bubble? Jeez.
Ok, so here's some opposing links:
(link, link, link, etc)
Sooo.....Good effort with that strong, "badass" finish to your post though. LOLOLOL
1) Wow, you worked in about 4 "LOL's" ! What a strong argument you made! You should be very proud of yourself.
2) as far as my links go:
a) they were the first hits on google. Blame google, not me, for "cherry picking " biased sources (as you suggested I did )
b) Read the damn quotes. Those are some of the top constitutional scholars in the country. I didn't pick editorial opinion pieces from "left-wing" sources. So if you read in a quote from a renowned expert in the NYtimes, let me guess, you just ignore it because of the title of the news-source ??
c) even John Yoo seemed to agree that a faith test for immigration was likely unconstitutional
3) Now your "opposing" links: You have some good ones. Let's look at the very first one, which seems to be an unbiased source (bravo for you). On Trump's proposed Muslim ban-
"Immediately, this political argument led to a constitutional debate. Reputable legal scholars have taken directly opposite positions on the constitutionality of such a ban." And....
"It does seem reasonably clear that, if a proper challenger could be found, the courts very likely would be open to hear their claim. And it would not be a sure thing that they would lose in that forum."
Since you apparently didn't even read your own sources, or understand them, I'll translate it for you-
Many legal scholars think the ban is unconstitutional (which was MY POINT, dummy, I never said "ALL"), and there is a chance that if a proper challenger brought this to court, they would win.
So......THAT is your great rebuttal to my point that
"Except......quite a few legal scholars/experts on constitutional law disagree with (the contention that Trump's proposed ban on Muslims is constitutional) " ?? Seriously?
4) Lastly, your other sources don't contradict me either:
a) 2 says: Trump's ban is *not necessarily* unconstitutional (meaning there is a debate about this)
b) another says it is "POSSIBLE" Trump's ban could get upheld by the court's.
And all sources basically rip the proposal as a bad idea.
So......what the hell was your point? I never said ALL constitutional scholars think the Trump ban proposal is unconstitutional. I just said that "QUITE A FEW" do. And all you did was provide sources that AGREE WITH ME that quite a few do! Outstanding work.
(you probably just skimmed my post and once you saw MSNBC (!!!) and WAPO (omg, omg, omg!!) you hyperventilated so much you just decided to make assumptions about what I wrote instead of actually reading it. And now you look like an idiot. Bang up job!