All right Tarot, met me lay it down for you. There's a difference between intent and what you say. Just like I mentioned above, all that is necessary is a discriminatory INTENT to make an action unconstitutional. I know this must be hard for you, because the EO didn't say "Muslim Ban." Here's an example. Your parents intended to have you as a desperate attempt to save the last vestiges of their marriage, but they TELL you that it's because they wanted you and love you. You see the intent is different from the words they say because they know those words would make them look bad. Discriminatory intent in this EO is OBVIOUS. You look like a joke. ALSO, nothing you've said has addressed the deep constitutional issues at play here. It doesn't matter what Obama did. If the EO is ruled unconstitutional it's going down.

Thanks, Unkle, but I have read it because I'm not a blowhard.

Okay Sero either your reading comprehension is in the trash or you just googled websites that had headlines that you THOUGHT proved your point but really doesn't. None of them address important and critical establishment clause and equal protection clause debate, and none of them are rooted in law. In fact, the article from politifact explicitly states that Donald called for a Muslim Ban AND that none of those countries had ever orchestrated a terrorist attack on the US. The ones saying it's legal pushes the fact that the president has immigration power but conveniently refuses to recognize that the judicial branch has power to review presidential decisions for unconstitutional bullshit (you know, three branches of government and all that). I wouldn't hire you to do research for me.

Sero, literally click the link I provided right in front of your face. Since you can't even do that, here "On December 7th, 2015, Trump called for a 'total and complete shutdown of the entry of Muslims to the United States.'" yes, the source I sourced even sources that quote, so don't get fresh with me. Under US Constiutional law, for a law to be struck down as unconstitutional, it MERELY must be motivated IN PART by animus against a religious group. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. 459 U.S. 116 (1982) It doesn't matter if there's a legitimate interest. Even if terrorism WAS a problem from those countries (it isn't. See first link above), Donald has made it clear that this is motivated (at least in part, which is all that is required) by religious animus, and therefore unconstitutional. Don't speak to me again until you have specific sources to refute my argument, preferably rooted in US case law, not just random, extremest trash about *heavy air quotes* "terrorists" and "radical islam."

I thought I was the only one on here schooling these ignoramus.' I'll toss in some sources just to be a pal. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ https://thinkprogress.org/trump-who-campaigned-on-a-muslim-ban-says-to-stop-calling-it-a-muslim-ban-630961d0fbcf#.sbmbhsxkc oh look this last one quotes an explicit quote of Donald's saying he wants to call for a ban of Muslims into the United States. Don't give me the "It's not a Muslim ban" garbage. It's enough under the lemon test to totally invalidate the ban under the establishment clause (for idiots, that's the first amendment).

Did no one notice that sero literally just said they didn't care whether the ban was constitutional or not? My god.

Damn Rose is on fucking fire. I just listened to the livestream of the argument before the 9th circuit court of appeals, and in no uncertain terms we know that a ban based on religion is unconstitutional even if it doesn't ban all members of the religious class. All that needs to be shown that the action was motivated "in some way" by animus against a certain religious class. I think that can be EASILY shown given the executives campaigning, especially if we get to the discovery phase and start subpoenaing emails.

Sock it to 'em, Rose!

You're an idiot.

Aunt Josephine was right about the doorknobs.

Well if congress puts such a plan in place then great. Until then, MAGI medicaid under the ACA NEEDS to stay in place for those who need it, no questions. Congress is behaving like a big, angry baby who doesn't care about the American people.

To clarify, if congress has a PLAN for people who are below the poverty line currently and on MAGI medicaid and thinks they can do a better job at protecting American citizens then by all means I urge them to go ahead. But they don't. They're just repealing the ACA out of spite and effectively telling 43 million Americans that their government doesn't care about them, their families, or their health.

If they were disabled? Where are you getting your facts about medicaid? http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-is-the-aca-impacting-medicaid-enrollment/ Regardless of how you think it was passed people are depending on it now. It's been around for seven years and the fact that congress wants to repeal it without a backup plan is ignorant, cruel, and inane.

Medicaid wasn't available to those from the ages of 19-54 before the ACA. Unless congress has a plan for people who are currently on MAGI before repealing the ACA they're basically saying "fuck you, people living below the poverty line. You don't deserve to live" Also, you need to source your bizarre statements about bribing congress members and illegal lying. And I don't know about you, but I'm happy to pay a higher premium so that those who can't afford it can live. I can afford a few hundred dollars. They can't, and will literally become homeless without health insurance. I'm honestly surprised you're willing to say that the cost of raising premiums isn't worth it.

So you're saying it only took 54 years for men to realize their brains are important? that is a HUGE, critical difference, I see.

My point is those below the poverty line can't afford those plans if they have to shell out for them. the ACA expanded medicaid so that those who are making below 2,200 a month get free healthcare, and if you start making more money you start having to pay. People NEED health insurance they can afford and sometimes they can't afford anything at all.

I once worked with a client who had 90,000 dollars worth of medical bills because of an emergency surgery. I think you misunderstand exactly how expensive medical care is.

...... are you fucking serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS!? That's literally what Obamacare does. It expanded medicaid coverage to those below the poverty line regardless of age. It's called MAGI medicaid and it didn't exist before the ACA. PLEASE do your research before arguing online about something.

I literally sourced it? Literally just click the link? And all I'm saying it isn't "the vast majority" of people who have insurance through their employers, and that the people who need medicaid aren't a marginal number (43 million, rather)

Only 9% of private companies offer comprehensive healthcare, and 14% of americans are below the poverty line. That's 43.1 million Americans. http://fortune.com/2016/03/30/employer-paid-health-insurance-is-dying-off/ http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states you're arguing that 43.1 million Americans who can't afford healthcare and who have no chance of getting it anywhere else aren't benefiting from the ACA?

OR he's disabled and can't work and so is below the poverty line. Even if he isn't, your argument is super shitty. "oh you didn't have insurance before so now you don't deserve to live." get a life.