Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump travel ban injunction lifted in part by Supreme Court

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump travel ban injunction lifted in part by Supreme Court

    The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
    America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect.
    The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down.
    The order seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.
    The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
    "All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."
    The court said it could not uphold lower court injunctions barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all.
    "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.
    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending a review.
    The policy had been left in limbo since it was struck down by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland, who found it to be discriminatory.
    Those lower courts ruled against the executive order days after the president issued a revised version with a narrower scope on 6 March.
    The original ban, released on 27 January, provoked mass protests at American airports.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40409490


    Rule of law prevails.
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

  • #2
    So much for Obama appointed judges being right...

    Comment


    • #3
      Court partly reinstates Trump travel ban, fall arguments set

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

      The court said Monday the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.

      Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.

      The Trump administration said the 90-day ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

      A 120-ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a limited basis.
      https://apnews.com/9c78ee01f1ab45ffb...-arguments-set

      The hearing will be a defining moment for Trump's administration. A loss will be a stinging rebuke to a young president. A victory will be a vindication for his political vision. Both sides have a big stake in this one, as they both need a clear win in the run up to the mid term elections.

      And considering how much passion has been invested in this by both sides already, expect temperatures to run hot this fall.

      Comment


      • #4
        This ban was supposed to be temporary while they "figured things out" and implemented a better vetting process. If their ban had been approved when they wanted, it would now have been up. So my question is, why haven't they figured things out yet? Where is the permanent solution that they promised? The original intention of the ban was simply to buy time, they've had their time and we still have nothing. In their own words we should have a permanent solution by now, nullifying the need of this executive order. We are past the point of this emergency ban being effective or being capable of serving its original purpose. Unless the plan all along was to forever extend this "temporary" ban.

        Thousands of refugees have already poured into the country under Trump. At this point it's nothing more than a political play, the order will be more effective in securing votes than it will be in securing the nation.

        If the full order is upheld or struct down we will not be any closer to securing our nation from radical threats either way it goes. Especially when we have to wait till October to find out if and how we can protect ourselves. The process has made all of this utterly pointless.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #5
          A few more of the land mines left behind my Obama just got defused.
          Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
            A few more of the land mines left behind my Obama just got defused.
            How so?

            Comment


            • #7
              Ha Ha

              Comment


              • #8
                Essentially they made clear that none of the reasons (campaign rhetoric) the lower courts used are even applicable.

                The pResidents & even Congress' Constitutional authority over immigration has been reaffirmed in stone.

                This is done, period, and October will be moot.

                Next!

                🥃
                On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                ACG History Today

                BoRG

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Admiral View Post
                  Essentially they made clear that none of the reasons (campaign rhetoric) the lower courts used are even applicable.

                  The pResidents & even Congress' Constitutional authority over immigration has been reaffirmed in stone.

                  This is done, period, and October will be moot.

                  Next!

                  🥃
                  Agreed, federal judges do not have the right to overrule the POTUS on immigration policy, they just don't have that right and the SCOTUS just affirmed that!
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The US dropped 26,000 bombs on those countries in 2016. Yup, under Obama, stepped up from 23,000 in 2015.

                    Do you think that some of those guys might be looking for a little pay-back? You can't trop bombs and Visas in the same place at the same time... not unless you are trying to import terror.


                    What the hell is a "bonafide relationship" supposed to be? Can't you lie about something like that?

                    Well, at least this thing passed. In the final Judgement, US Law protects US Citizens... instead of favoring foreigners over our right to stay alive.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is exactly how I thought it would go once it got to the top. A slap in the face to activist judges.
                      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                        This is exactly how I thought it would go once it got to the top. A slap in the face to activist judges.
                        The decisions by the lower courts were embarrassingly stupid.
                        Not because they were adverse to the travel ban, but because they based their interpretation of the executive order on things Trump said on the campaign trail rather than the wording of the order.

                        That is contrary to how laws are to be interpreted and makes the court's analysis dependent on who enacted the law rather than what it actually says.
                        Laws are to be interpreted based upon the language of the law rather than who said it.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          The decisions by the lower courts were embarrassingly stupid.
                          Not because they were adverse to the travel ban, but because they based their interpretation of the executive order on things Trump said on the campaign trail rather than the wording of the order.

                          That is contrary to how laws are to be interpreted and makes the court's analysis dependent on who enacted the law rather than what it actually says.
                          Laws are to be interpreted based upon the language of the law rather than who said it.
                          Well to be fair, his messages while in office have often subverted his own administration. Remember when his top men were repeating that "this is not a travel ban" on every media outlet for days - only to have Trump come out and publicly declare that it certain was a "travel ban" in no uncertain terms?

                          I'd argue that the public intent expressed behind an act should be part of how it is viewed. The two aren't separate. If Trump said "I want to do X for Y reasons" then the sanitized text isnt the only measuring stick.

                          What will really sink the case though is that Trump's actions do seem to be within his purview as Chief Executive ( but for the previously mentioned poor message control ). Considering the current make up for the USSC and the established powers for the president, I'm not so sure the opposition will get a win. But I'm not as brushed up on the particulars - mostly because I see this as an exercise in political theater by both sides, and of little substance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Admiral View Post
                            Essentially they made clear that none of the reasons (campaign rhetoric) the lower courts used are even applicable.

                            The pResidents & even Congress' Constitutional authority over immigration has been reaffirmed in stone.

                            This is done, period, and October will be moot.

                            Next!

                            🥃
                            It's funny because a few months ago I was making this argument with a liberal friend of mine, that Trump's power as executive defended his position pretty strongly, but he really didn't want to listen.

                            People can despise it all they likes, but the legality isn't as questionable as they seem to hope. It would be an upset for them to obtain a "victory" on this issue, even with all the help Trump has been giving them!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              Well to be fair, his messages while in office have often subverted his own administration. Remember when his top men were repeating that "this is not a travel ban" on every media outlet for days - only to have Trump come out and publicly declare that it certain was a "travel ban" in no uncertain terms?

                              I'd argue that the public intent expressed behind an act should be part of how it is viewed. The two aren't separate. If Trump said "I want to do X for Y reasons" then the sanitized text isnt the only measuring stick.

                              What will really sink the case though is that Trump's actions do seem to be within his purview as Chief Executive ( but for the previously mentioned poor message control ). Considering the current make up for the USSC and the established powers for the president, I'm not so sure the opposition will get a win. But I'm not as brushed up on the particulars - mostly because I see this as an exercise in political theater by both sides, and of little substance.


                              When Courts interpret the law, they are to look at the language of the law, not who wrote it.
                              If the law is "ambiguous" then they can look at the legislative history to determine the law's intent.
                              Campaign statements are not the "legislative history".
                              If they were, then OBamacare should have been found unconstitutional based on things Obama said about the law before it was passed. His statements were not considered when the SCOTUS interpreted the law because they are not part of the "legislative history" of the law.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X