https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-26/trump-travel-ban-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311262)

Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311269)

This the stuff of constitutional crisis stuff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311698)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011620271327989760

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311444)

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States,323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating anotherwise valid Proclamation.

The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords

this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it

was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311467)

HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311645)

Also she throws in this bullshit SJW nugget in a footnote:

"It is important to note, particularly given the nature of this case, that many consider “using the term ‘alien’ to refer to other human beings” to be “offensive and demeaning.” Flores v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F. 3d 548, 551–552, n. 1 (CA6 2013). I use the term here only where necessary “to be consistent with the statutory language” that Congress has chosen and “to avoid any confusion in replacing a legal term of art with a more appropriate term.” Ibid."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311490)

1. We recognize that using the term "alien" to refer to other human beings is offensive and demeaning. We do not condone the use of the term and urge Congress to eliminate it from the U.S. Code. We use it here, however, to be consistent with the statutory language and to avoid any confusion in replacing a legal term of art with a more appropriate term.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311516)

wait this country is fuct there are 100 million ppl like her

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311634)

Hold on.

What's with that citation format?

Why not "6th Cir."?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311876)

gorsuch's concurrence in wayfair last week had a string cite of "CA10" cites

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311895)

During a rally in April 2017, President Trump recited the lyrics to a song called “The Snake,” a song about a woman who nurses a sick snake back to health but then is attacked by the snake, as a warning about Syrian refugees entering the country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4010538&forum_id=2#36311595)

EDIT: lmao