Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-26-2017, 03:24 PM   #16
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:28 PM   #17
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,285
[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.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:35 PM   #18
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
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.
tucker6 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:35 PM   #19
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post

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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:40 PM   #20
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,095
[quote=AndyC;2189026]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
.....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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:49 PM   #21
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post

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.

Last edited by tucker6; 06-26-2017 at 03:51 PM.
tucker6 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 03:57 PM   #22
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 04:07 PM   #23
Greyfox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
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!
Greyfox is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 04:51 PM   #24
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfox View Post
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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 04:58 PM   #25
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 05:10 PM   #26
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
....... 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.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 05:32 PM   #27
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 06:58 PM   #28
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
[quote=mostpost;2189036]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
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.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 06:59 PM   #29
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
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.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-26-2017, 08:21 PM   #30
_______
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Washoe County, Nevada
Posts: 2,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
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.
_______ is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Wh deserves to be the favorite? (last 4 figures)
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.