View Full Version : SCOTUS OK's travel ban
chadk66
06-26-2017, 11:49 AM
:ThmbUp:
Clocker
06-26-2017, 12:05 PM
It grants a temporary and partial approval.
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.Bona fide relationship means family relation, someone already a student in a US school, or someone with employment with a US company.
tucker6
06-26-2017, 12:06 PM
A 90 percent win for The Donald.
chadk66
06-26-2017, 12:18 PM
just more winning. nothing new:headbanger:
reckless
06-26-2017, 12:44 PM
While it should have never reached the US Supreme Court in the first place, once again, President Donald J. Trump was proven 100 per cent correct in the travel ban.
In addition to basic common sense, Trump had the US Constitution in his favor.
The real problem was anti-America presidents such as B.J. Clinton and Barry Obama who loaded the lower courts throughout the years with ideologues and idiots, with little regard to our sovereignty, safety, or laws.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 01:00 PM
This decision is not about the travel ban, or Trump's ability to issue it. This decision is about the temporary injunctions issued by the 4th and 9th Circuits staying that ban.
The issue as to the legality of the ban will be taken up by the Court in its fall session.
tucker6
06-26-2017, 01:13 PM
This decision is not about the travel ban, or Trump's ability to issue it. This decision is about the temporary injunctions issued by the 4th and 9th Circuits staying that ban.
The issue as to the legality of the ban will be taken up by the Court in its fall session.
That may be, but the SCOTUS decision to allow the ban to go forward prior to the hearing speaks volumes about their thinking. The travel ban is for 90 days unless extended. That means that by the time of oral arguments, the ban may be over already.
woodtoo
06-26-2017, 01:18 PM
:9: -ayes
Zero-nays
hear,here.
classhandicapper
06-26-2017, 01:27 PM
I've lost all faith in congress, the Fed, the media and everyone else in what I think is the biggest priority - getting our financial house in order. They are all a bunch of liars, losers and scumbags. However, if Trump can keep stacking the Supreme Court with young conservative constitutionalists, I'll consider him a resounding success. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent the next market collapse and recession. That story was written during the last administration.
Valuist
06-26-2017, 01:39 PM
I've lost all faith in congress, the Fed, the media and everyone else in what I think is the biggest priority - getting our financial house in order. They are all a bunch of liars, losers and scumbags. However, if Trump can keep stacking the Supreme Court with young conservative constitutionalists, I'll consider him a resounding success. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent the next market collapse and recession. That story was written during the last administration.
But you and I both know the media will never, ever view it that way. But you are 100% correct.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 02:12 PM
The travel ban is for 90 days unless extended. That means that by the time of oral arguments, the ban may be over already.
I doubt that SCOTUS will issue an order on this before the end of the year.
The 90 day ban is supposed to give the government time to review its vetting procedures. I doubt the administration can accomplish that within 90 days, and if they can, the new procedures will certainly be challenged by the left. So the "temporary" ban will be extended until SCOTUS rules on the issue.
boxcar
06-26-2017, 02:25 PM
I doubt that SCOTUS will issue an order on this before the end of the year.
The 90 day ban is supposed to give the government time to review its vetting procedures. I doubt the administration can accomplish that within 90 days, and if they can, the new procedures will certainly be challenged by the left. So the "temporary" ban will be extended until SCOTUS rules on the issue.
Maybe not. This administration has had all this time to work quietly during this period of stays. I think it would be outrageously funny if the temporary ban expires and the new vetting procedures are implemented before the SC gets around to hearing what would, then, become a non-case. Talk about an easy, no-brainer court decision. :lol::lol:
mostpost
06-26-2017, 03:02 PM
It grants a temporary and partial approval.
Bona fide relationship means family relation, someone already a student in a US school, or someone with employment with a US company.
How about that, there is a conservative who can read.
mostpost
06-26-2017, 03:04 PM
A 90 percent win for The Donald.
More like a 30 percent temporary win.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 03:21 PM
How about that, there is a conservative who can read.
I can also read between the lines. The decision lets the administration do what ever it wants to do.
The word "temporary" has no meaning in government. Once the policy is in place, it will take a Democratic president to take it out.
The exception for those with a "bona fide relationship" also means whatever the administration wants it to mean, because it now needs to establish a vettting procedure to verify a "bona fide relationship".
mostpost
06-26-2017, 03:24 PM
It grants a temporary and partial approval.
Quote:
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.
Bona fide relationship means family relation, someone already a student in a US school, or someone with employment with a US company.
Just going on what you posted above and not having read the actual decision; I would say that the court is allowing the United States to enforce the exceptions to the ban, but not the ban itself.
Here is a list of:
Case-by-Case Exceptions listed in Executive Order 13780
3(c)(i)
The foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the effective date of this order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair that activity.[12]
3(c)(ii)
The foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity.[12]
3(c)(iii)
The foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations.[12]
3(c)(iv)
The foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship.[12]
3(c)(v)
The foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case.[12]
3(c)(vi)
The foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government.[12]
3(c)(vii)
The foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C.*§*288, traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA.[12]
3(c)(viii)
The foreign national is a landed immigrant of Canada who applies for a visa at a location within Canada.[12]
3(c)(ix)
The foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.[12]
A Family relationship would be covered under 3(c)(iv).
A study or business relationship would be covered under 3(c)(I); 3(c)(ii) and 3(c)(iii)
Don't fool yourself into thinking that a unanimous decision her foretells a victory for Trump.
AndyC
06-26-2017, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE=mostpost;2189022].....Just going on what you posted above and not having read the actual decision; I would say that the court is allowing the United States to enforce the exceptions to the ban, but not the ban itself...../QUOTE]
You have got it backwards. The US can enforce the ban with exceptions for the people who have already been vetted. A logical decision.
tucker6
06-26-2017, 03:35 PM
Don't fool yourself into thinking that a unanimous decision her foretells a victory for Trump.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that giving Trump nearly carte blanche to vet people from these six countries isn't telegraphing their eventual opinion on the matter. If the SCOTUS thought the "ban" was out of line in any way with regard to Trump's authority, they would have upheld the lower courts until arguments were heard. This was a complete repudiation of the lower courts, especially at 9-0.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 03:35 PM
You have got it backwards. The US can enforce the ban with exceptions for the people who have already been vetted. A logical decision.Wow, another conservative that can read. ;)
mostpost
06-26-2017, 03:40 PM
[QUOTE=mostpost;2189022].....Just going on what you posted above and not having read the actual decision; I would say that the court is allowing the United States to enforce the exceptions to the ban, but not the ban itself...../QUOTE]
You have got it backwards. The US can enforce the ban with exceptions for the people who have already been vetted. A logical decision.
It turns out that you are correct. I did indeed misinterpret the segment clocker posted. Reading a different article on the subject made that clear.
However, we should not assume that this means the court will uphold the ban when they decide the matter in the fall.
tucker6
06-26-2017, 03:49 PM
However, we should not assume that this means the court will uphold the ban when they decide the matter in the fall.
The cake is pretty much baked on this one Mostie. Best to move on. The snowflakes lost.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 03:57 PM
The cake is pretty much baked on this one Mostie. Best to move on. The snowflakes lost.
Speaking of cakes, SCOTUS is going to hear the case about the refusal to bake a gay wedding cake in the fall session. :popcorn:
Greyfox
06-26-2017, 04:07 PM
The lower level courts who believed that they are in a better position than the Trump Administration to determine policy for National Security were idiots!
mostpost
06-26-2017, 04:51 PM
The lower level courts who believed that they are in a better position than the Trump Administration to determine policy for National Security were idiots!
You need to learn the difference between determining policy and ruling on the Constitutionality of a law. Determining policy is the provenance of the Administration. Making sure they execute that policy in a legal and constitutional manner is the purview of the courts.
mostpost
06-26-2017, 04:58 PM
The cake is pretty much baked on this one Mostie. Best to move on. The snowflakes lost.
No comment on this except to say that using "Snowflakes" as you did is really dumb and shows no originality. It's almost as bad as "Cucks" which I don't think has any real meaning at all.
AndyC
06-26-2017, 05:10 PM
....... Determining policy is the provenance of the Administration. Making sure they execute that policy in a legal and constitutional manner is the purview of the courts.
You are absolutely correct, hence the SCOTUS decision. If courts quit worrying about how they feel about policy and stuck to the law we would be in a much better place.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 05:32 PM
You need to learn the difference between determining policy and ruling on the Constitutionality of a law.
Some Circuit Court justices need to learn the difference. The Fourth Circuit found that the travel ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While there was nothing in the language of the order that anyone could point to as referring to religion, the court intuited religious intent from remarks and tweets made by Trump while a candidate. In essence, the court found Trump guilty of a thought crime.
chadk66
06-26-2017, 06:58 PM
[quote=AndyC;2189026]
It turns out that you are correct. I did indeed misinterpret the segment clocker posted. Reading a different article on the subject made that clear.
However, we should not assume that this means the court will uphold the ban when they decide the matter in the fall.believe me that doesn't surprise anybody here.
:pound:
chadk66
06-26-2017, 06:59 PM
Some Circuit Court justices need to learn the difference. The Fourth Circuit found that the travel ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While there was nothing in the language of the order that anyone could point to as referring to religion, the court intuited religious intent from remarks and tweets made by Trump while a candidate. In essence, the court found Trump guilty of a thought crime.what they did is imply their will on the people.
_______
06-26-2017, 08:21 PM
This decision is not about the travel ban, or Trump's ability to issue it. This decision is about the temporary injunctions issued by the 4th and 9th Circuits staying that ban.
The issue as to the legality of the ban will be taken up by the Court in its fall session.
Justices Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas joined a dissent indicating they would have approved the full ban. Which means the administration still needs to win over two justices, most likely Kennedy and Roberts.
There is no reason for the administration to risk a loss in October. They will finish their review and declare victory before the case is ever heard in the fall. It will be moot by October. This is all you will ever hear from the SC on this matter.
On a separate issue, Kennedy did not announce his retirement. It's not impossible that he could still do so over the summer but it would be unusual for a Justice not to use the last day of the session to signal their intent to leave.
Clocker
06-26-2017, 08:39 PM
There is no reason for the administration to risk a loss in October. They will finish their review and declare victory before the case is ever heard in the fall. It will be moot by October. This is all you will ever hear from the SC on this matter.
On a separate issue, Kennedy did not announce his retirement. It's not impossible that he could still do so over the summer but it would be unusual for a Justice not to use the last day of the session to signal their intent to leave.
But that won't end it. Once they do get their vetting process in place, the left will sue because the new process is not fair or whatever.
Kennedy is still a topic for gossip. It is traditional for a Justice to hold a reunion of past law clerks every 5 years. Kennedy's next reunion was scheduled for June of 2018, but was moved up a year to this past weekend.
boxcar
06-26-2017, 08:52 PM
More like a 30 percent temporary win.
Depends on how you count. A 9-0 decision = 100% victory in my book and also tells me that it's highly unlikely they will change that decision. And the 9th Circus and the 4th Circuit should be hanging their heads in shame, since that kind of decision is tantamount to a judicial slap down of the nitwits on those circuits (most especially the 9th circuit). But of course, liberals have no shame, nor do they know when they should feel any. Completely dead from the neck up....
_______
06-26-2017, 09:01 PM
But that won't end it. Once they do get their vetting process in place, the left will sue because the new process is not fair or whatever.
Kennedy is still a topic for gossip. It is traditional for a Justice to hold a reunion of past law clerks every 5 years. Kennedy's next reunion was scheduled for June of 2018, but was moved up a year to this past weekend.
Kennedy, at that reunion, made a number of forward looking comments regarding the next term. He also made a joke about having a HUGE announcement...that the bar would remain open past midnight.
He doesn't look to me like someone considering retirement.
The cake is pretty much baked on this one Mostie. Best to move on. The snowflakes lost.
Not only that, but come October, the Kangaroo Kourt will also decide what can be decorated on that cake! :headbanger:
Seems pretty clear that by allowing it to continue, they will not backtrack it later on. The whole issue might be moot by then.
But leave it too CNN, all they were focusing on today was that the court did not address his campaign statements and that would be the key later on.
BS - the court realized nothing but the order matters,and that nothing he said or says has ANY bearing on this at all.
Trump, like Dominos, he delivers.
Oh, btw it is NOT a travel ban.
Stop legitimizing the lying left by calling it that.
reckless
06-26-2017, 09:57 PM
I think this Anthony Kennedy to retire story is a ruse. Why, who knows? Kennedy just might like the attention this is getting him and we all know that he does has the biggest and most misguided opinion of oneself in the entire Court -- aside from Elena Kagan, that is.
I do believe that if there's a Justice seriously considering retiring that one just might be the great Clarence Thomas, sad to say. I hope not but he did say early last year he might consider packing it in.
Clocker
06-27-2017, 10:55 AM
Steny Hoyer, the #2 senile Dem in the House, says that the SCOTUS decision is a big victory for ISIS.
“This ban places our country in serious danger and undermines the very foundations of our democracy," Hoyer said in a statement. "It hands a victory to ISIS and other terror groups by providing them with a potent tool for recruitment and radicalization."Right. This is the final straw that will cause a lot of potential terrorists to put down their copy of the NY Times and pick up an AK-47 and a suicide bomb vest. :rolleyes:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/06/26/no-2-house-dem-ruling-on-travel-ban-hands-a-victory-to-isis/
boxcar
06-27-2017, 11:21 AM
Steny Hoyer, the #2 senile Dem in the House, says that the SCOTUS decision is a big victory for ISIS.
Right. This is the final straw that will cause a lot of potential terrorists to put down their copy of the NY Times and pick up an AK-47 and a suicide bomb vest. :rolleyes:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/06/26/no-2-house-dem-ruling-on-travel-ban-hands-a-victory-to-isis/
Someone should point out to this senile dimwit that appeasement hasn't been working out too swell in Germany, France and England.
“This ban places our country in serious danger and undermines the very foundations of our democracy," Hoyer said in a statement. "It hands a victory to ISIS and other terror groups by providing them with a potent tool for recruitment and radicalization."
If something as minor and temporary as that can radicalize them, then it just proves it is a great idea. Minds as weka as , as weak as democrat minds, need to be thoroughly vetted. Unlike the dems, we can do it to them. We have to live with the dems walking among us.
_______
06-27-2017, 07:15 PM
One last note on Kennedy...he has hired clerks for the forthcoming 2017-18 term. That pretty much nails shut any possibility he'll voluntarily retire before the end of that session.
Of note, he is telling those interviewing for clerk positions in the 2018-19 term that he is considering retirement (I wonder if that is where this rumor got started).
So, not this year but very possibly next year.
tucker6
06-28-2017, 06:34 AM
One last note on Kennedy...he has hired clerks for the forthcoming 2017-18 term. That pretty much nails shut any possibility he'll voluntarily retire before the end of that session.
Of note, he is telling those interviewing for clerk positions in the 2018-19 term that he is considering retirement (I wonder if that is where this rumor got started).
So, not this year but very possibly next year.
No, the rumor started when he moved the occasional get together with former and current clerks up a year. That prompted some of his former clerks to suggest that maybe he wanted to do that prior to retiring.
biggestal99
06-28-2017, 12:03 PM
A 90 percent win for The Donald.
I would not put it that high.
First SCOTUS allowed the injunction to stand with regards to people with connections to the United States.
And that is the majority of people applying for visas.
The overreach by the 9th circuit was to include all people living in those countries.
If the 9th had only included those with connections with the United States.
The injunction would have been good to go.
The POTUS can exclude people with no connections to the United States from traveling to the United States. SCOTUS made that perfectly clear.
Allan
biggestal99
06-28-2017, 12:07 PM
Depends on how you count. A 9-0 decision = 100% victory in my book and also tells me that it's highly unlikely they will change that decision. And the 9th Circus and the 4th Circuit should be hanging their heads in shame, since that kind of decision is tantamount to a judicial slap down of the nitwits on those circuits (most especially the 9th circuit). But of course, liberals have no shame, nor do they know when they should feel any. Completely dead from the neck up....
Was not 9-0. It was 6-3. With 3 dissents (gorsuch, Thomas and Alioto) who wanted the entire injunction overturned.
Allan
biggestal99
06-28-2017, 12:13 PM
Oh, btw it is NOT a travel ban.
.
People from those 6 countries who have no connections to the United States are banned from traveling here.
What would you call it instead?
It is indeed a travel ban from those 6 counties the POTUS has designated.
Allan
tucker6
06-28-2017, 12:46 PM
People from those 6 countries who have no connections to the United States are banned from traveling here.
What would you call it instead?
It is indeed a travel ban from those 6 counties the POTUS has designated.
Allan
Since you're being extra picky, I believe Obama designated those six countries as needing more vetting. Trump just acted on the list Obama formulated. You can massage the Scotus decision all you'd like, the fact remains that Trump is largely free to define the gray area of what a "connection" is, and can institute extreme vetting procedures for at least six months before the SCOTUS gets around to deciding again. That sure sounds like a win to me.
biggestal99
06-28-2017, 01:45 PM
Since you're being extra picky, I believe Obama designated those six countries as needing more vetting. Trump just acted on the list Obama formulated. You can massage the Scotus decision all you'd like, the fact remains that Trump is largely free to define the gray area of what a "connection" is, and can institute extreme vetting procedures for at least six months before the SCOTUS gets around to deciding again. That sure sounds like a win to me.
Sorry if a person who has connections to the united states (a student who is attending a college here) is denied entry. Thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.
If a person owning a business here in the US is denied entry, thats certainly a lawsuit.
If a person has family who are citizens here and denied entry, thats a lawsuit.
I dont think the POTUS would be well served by denying everyone who lives in those 6 countries a visa.
if there is a legit reason to travel here from the those 6 countries they should be allowed to travel to the US.
will be interesting to see how many lawsuits are filed by people who are denied entry.
Allan
biggestal99
06-28-2017, 01:51 PM
Since you're being extra picky, .
How is that picky. I just stated the facts.
The EO issued by the POTUS prohibits travel to the US from those 6 countries. (unless they have a bona fide connection)
Thats a travel ban. no if and or buts. Its a fact.
How can anyone argue that point.
Allan
Originally Posted by biggestal99 View Post
People from those 6 countries who have no connections to the United States are banned from traveling here.
What would you call it instead?
It is indeed a travel ban from those 6 counties the POTUS has designated.
Allan
I'd call it Obama's list. HE is the one who made in the first place.
And not all people are banned - there are exceptions. And it is not a ban, but a temporary hold. Big difference, unless you get your news from FNN.
And the reason for those 6 countries, which the press NEVER mentions, is that there is no reliable vetting in any of them.
You remember, Obama, the guy who refused to allow investigations to look at social media, which could very well have prevented the San Bernadino shooting because of the wife's comments?
I would call this heads up good national security.
Remember, bottom line here is that NO ONE has a right to come here for any reason. They come at our pleasure and only when WE decide it is safe to allow them to.
Not to mention it is 100% legal, and everyone knew it was form the get go - just more interference with America by the disgusting democrats.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.