Travel Ban

[CID1990]

And, those have nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling... but, sorry to interrupt the circle jerk. Jerk away.

Don't worry, Junior

You'll get a win someday

[Skjellyfetti]

Shrug.

I don't dislike the ban in its current form that much.

I really didn't like the fact that it banned green card holders and others already granted legal entry in the first iteration. That's taken care of now.

I didn't like the fact that it had immediate effect... including people en route. A 72 hour roll out is much more sane.

I'm not crazy about families being separated based solely on point of origin. That's still pending further ruling.

A 90/120 day ban on people without a personal or professional relationship in the US isn't that big of a deal to me. Meh.

[BDKJMU]

Basically SCOTUS gives a victory and defeat to both sides...

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday a bid by President Donald Trump to include grandparents and other relatives in his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries.

But in a partial win for Trump, the court gave the government more leeway to enforce a separate ban on refugees that was included in a March 6 executive order the president said was necessary for national security.

A federal judge had ruled against the government on the scope of both bans last Thursday, prompting the administration to seek Supreme Court intervention.

The high court's decision means that, for now, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law are not covered by the 90-day travel ban on people from the six countries who want to enter the United States.

The court's action on refugees could block entry of up to 24,000 refugees who have a connection to a U.S. resettlement agency, according to court papers.

The brief order said the court's decision is temporary while the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers a separate appeal on the same issue. Three of the conservatives on the court of nine justices noted that they would have granted Trump's request in full.....

....The Supreme Court also announced on Wednesday that it has scheduled oral arguments on broad questions on the lawfulness of the ban for Oct. 10.

The Trump administration last Friday asked the high court to overturn a decision on Thursday by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and the 120-day ban on refugees....

...The latest round in the fight over Trump's executive order began after the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans. Both had been blocked by lower courts.

The Supreme Court said then that the bans could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted. He ruled for the state late on Thursday....."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-i ... SKBN1A420D

[BDKJMU]

Why do you think they'll even take it? I don't think it's a guarantee at all that it will be taken up by the SCOTUS.

Doesn't the question needs to be answered if the below portion of 8 USC 1182 is valid or not?

"..(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. A president either has the ability to ban visas from certain countries as the law clearly states he does, or the law is null and void, no?

Pretty cut and dry. What a POTUS said during the campaign is irrelevant. The law above is either valid, and 'a POTUS' has the authority to do the above, or the law above isn't valid..

You had liberal activist circuit court judges that were clearly shopped, and clearly ignored a valid statute, in striking down Trumps temporary ban on immigrant from a handful of countries..

I mean this wasn't even close (7-2)..Slam dunk that a POTUS has the authority..

[CID1990]

I don’t think anyone really believed the lower federal judges involved in this case were using the law in their decisions.

[HI54UNI]

Travel ban upheld.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy, and the president quickly tweeted his reaction: “Wow!”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116 ... tion-claim

[Chizzang]

I don’t think anyone really believed the lower federal judges involved in this case were using the law in their decisions.

None of them even bothered to site any law or precedent

[CID1990]

I don’t think anyone really believed the lower federal judges involved in this case were using the law in their decisions.

None of them even bothered to site any law or precedent

Necropost!

*cite

[Chizzang]

None of them even bothered to site any law or precedent

Necropost!

*cite

Relevant today
Site / Sight / Cite /

[dbackjon]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

[Col Hogan]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that...

[Col Hogan]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

[CAA Flagship]

Necropost!

*cite

Relevant today
Site / Sight / Cite /

Psyte.

[HI54UNI]

Just wait until Kennedy announces that he is retiring later this week. Another solid conservative justice will be appointed to replace him. The meltdown will be epic!

[Winterborn]

Just wait until Kennedy announces that he is retiring later this week. Another solid conservative justice will be appointed to replace him. The meltdown will be epic!

I don't think he will this year. I believe he put in a request for some clerks(?) for the next session which he wouldn't of done if he was retiring. Unless he is trolling everybody.

[GannonFan]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

Will Dems be able to forgive Biden for laying the groundwork for all of this to happen (i.e. the idea he pushed that a nominee should not answer questions regarding topics that could come to them as a justice once they're on the court (i.e. what took down Bork but has made confirmation a cakewalk since then) and the idea that a lame-duck President should not name a nominee in the last year of their term if the current Senate is in the other party's hands?)? As for decisions being overturned, any 5-4 decision (or 6-3) have good chances of being overturned in years to come just due to the close nature of the vote. But as another poster said, Kennedy's going to be replaced by someone more to the right than he is, so it could be awhile before the Court moves in another direction.

[Ivytalk]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

You sound more like Maxine Waters every day!

[BDKJMU]

The Stolen SCOTUS seat - every single decision WILL BE overturned, or this country will cease to exist.

[JohnStOnge]

But as another poster said, Kennedy's going to be replaced by someone more to the right than he is, so it could be awhile before the Court moves in another direction.

I kind of suspect that Kennedy does not like the idea of Trump getting to appoint another Justice and will try to hang on to see if a different President will be elected. Of course Kennedy has limited control over whether he dies or not before a different President takes office. Same with Ginsburg.

Doesn't matter. If you look at the long term the other side is in better position to win in the long term.

[HI54UNI]

Just wait until Kennedy announces that he is retiring later this week. Another solid conservative justice will be appointed to replace him. The meltdown will be epic!

I don't think he will this year. I believe he put in a request for some clerks(?) for the next session which he wouldn't of done if he was retiring. Unless he is trolling everybody.

Guess he was trolling!

[Winterborn]

I don't think he will this year. I believe he put in a request for some clerks(?) for the next session which he wouldn't of done if he was retiring. Unless he is trolling everybody.

Guess he was trolling!

He did a good job!

[AZGrizFan]

But as another poster said, Kennedy's going to be replaced by someone more to the right than he is, so it could be awhile before the Court moves in another direction.

I kind of suspect that Kennedy does not like the idea of Trump getting to appoint another Justice and will try to hang on to see if a different President will be elected. Of course Kennedy has limited control over whether he dies or not before a different President takes office. Same with Ginsburg.

Doesn't matter. If you look at the long term the other side is in better position to win in the long term.

Good call, John.

[JohnStOnge]

I kind of suspect that Kennedy does not like the idea of Trump getting to appoint another Justice and will try to hang on to see if a different President will be elected. Of course Kennedy has limited control over whether he dies or not before a different President takes office. Same with Ginsburg.

Doesn't matter. If you look at the long term the other side is in better position to win in the long term.

Good call, John.

It's fine that what I suspected didn't happen. It does surprise me. And it still doesn't matter with respect to the other side winning in the long term. The Democrats will inevitably dominate. It's not a question of if. It's just a question of when. All of the underlying trends are in their favor.

[AZGrizFan]

Good call, John.

It's fine that what I suspected didn't happen. It does surprise me. And it still doesn't matter with respect to the other side winning in the long term. The Democrats will inevitably dominate. It's not a question of if. It's just a question of when. All of the underlying trends are in their favor.

I know, I was just thinking the same thing. The don’t own the house, senate or presidency (or Supreme Court for MANY years)...they own less than 1/2 the governorships, less than half the state houses and less than half the state legislatures...but the trends are in their favor.

[GannonFan]

It's fine that what I suspected didn't happen. It does surprise me. And it still doesn't matter with respect to the other side winning in the long term. The Democrats will inevitably dominate. It's not a question of if. It's just a question of when. All of the underlying trends are in their favor.

I know, I was just thinking the same thing. The don’t own the house, senate or presidency (or Supreme Court for MANY years)...they own less than 1/2 the governorships, less than half the state houses and less than half the state legislatures...but the trends are in their favor.

Well, if you take the tact of it can't get much worse, then, almost by default, it has to get better. JSO's an optimist that way.