• Parts Of Trump's Travel Ban Are Revived As Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case
    18 replies, posted
[url]http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/533934989/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-president-trumps-travel-ban[/url] [quote]The Supreme Court says it will decide the fate of President Trump's revised travel ban, agreeing to hear arguments over immigration cases that were filed in federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland, and allowing parts of the ban to take effect.[/quote]
Literally the curate's egg of travel bans. Parts of it are good, so we appeal against the previous injunction. Then you have this gem by Sessions after the ban order was placed: [quote]"The Executive Branch is entrusted with the responsibility to keep the country safe under Article II of the Constitution," U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement after the 9th Circuit ruling. Sessions called the threat of terrorism "immediate and real," and said the lower court's injunction "has a chilling effect on security operations overall."[/quote] I think you forgot that natural born US Citizens were the only people conducting terror attacks on american soil after 9/11 you idiot :terrists:
Supreme Court please, what are you doing?
[QUOTE]Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with Justice Samuel Alito and newly-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, saying the court didn't go far enough. [B]Thomas said he would have stayed the injunctions "in full," adding the government is "likely to succeed on the merits." [/B] Thomas expressed concern with the "court's remedy" and said he fears it will "prove unworkable."[/QUOTE] (From CNN) :why:
clarence thomas is the most insane far-right justice in decades
This was absolutely not what I was expecting... What the hell Also, how does one define a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US"? So that's what, family members and students/employees?
[QUOTE=Chaitin;52403043](From CNN) :why:[/QUOTE] Thomas is absolutely the most conservative member of the current Supreme Court. He's also a strict textualist, and you can get a strict interpretation of the Constitution that allows the ban. I think this case will come to a 5-4 or 6-3 against, but with allowances. Ginsburg has a long history of fighting discrimination, she'll be against it. Breyer will oppose it on pragmatic grounds, that freedom of religion trumps whatever law granted the Presidency control over immigration. Sotomayor and Kagan will probably vote on liberal lines. Thomas, obviously, will uphold, as will the Republican hired whores, Alito and Gorsuch. The hard one to predict is Kennedy. On the one hand, he's pretty conservative, being pretty similar to Rehnquist. On the other hand, he's pretty pro-defendant, joining the liberals in opposing Gitmo. And he likes "fixing" bad decisions - and being able to overturn [I]Korematsu v. United States[/I] would be a cap on his career. I don't think they'll block it completely. I mean, the Presidency does have control over immigration, within the bounds set by Congress. That does not enable a President to use those powers unconstitutionally, but it doesn't mean the Court can, or even should, block everything. Most likely, what we'll end up with is "increased scrutiny of travelers from countries with known terrorist presence". Trump will claim it as a win, the Republicans will claim it as a win, but it won't actually affect jack shit. People from Muslim countries will still be able to come in like they already have been. A token non-muslim country, probably North Korea, will get added to the list as well.
[QUOTE=Elv02;52403104]This was absolutely not what I was expecting... What the hell Also, how does one define a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US"? So that's what, family members and students/employees?[/QUOTE] seems like that leaves the door open to another lawsuit since its vague and leaves it up to the WH's disgression which is the fucking problem to begin with
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52402996]I think you forgot that [B]natural born US Citizens were the only people[/B] conducting terror attacks on american soil after 9/11 you idiot :terrists:[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting#The_perpetrator"]Wanna[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev"]try[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev"]that[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings#Perpetrator"]again[/URL]?
Is this gorsuch's first case?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52403166][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting#The_perpetrator"]Wanna[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev"]try[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev"]that[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings#Perpetrator"]again[/URL]?[/QUOTE] 1) None of those people came from countries on the ban list 2) The VAST majority of US terrorist attacks post 9/11 are still done by Americans. 3) The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, who conveniently isn't on the list. :thinking:
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52403166][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting#The_perpetrator"]Wanna[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev"]try[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev"]that[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings#Perpetrator"]again[/URL]?[/QUOTE] I apologize, I should've also added naturalized as well as natural born citizens. good catch.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52403177]Is this gorsuch's first case?[/QUOTE] No. He's been filing opinions since the end of May.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52403193]1) None of those people came from countries on the ban list 2) The VAST majority of US terrorist attacks post 9/11 are still done by Americans. 3) The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, who conveniently isn't on the list. :thinking:[/QUOTE] Oh I'm not defending the ban, in fact the only example that pops into mind of a perpetrator being from a banned country is the Ohio State University attack which makes a pretty short list of examples backing up the ban.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52403246]Oh I'm not defending the ban, in fact the only example that pops into mind of a perpetrator being from a banned country is the Ohio State University attack which makes a pretty short list of examples backing up the ban.[/QUOTE] A better argument against the ban is this: Trump has claimed that the ban is in response to intel of specific, immediate threats. During the five months his ban has been suspended, how many attacks have occurred? Have there even been any attempts? Even domestic terrorism has been ridiculously low, outside a few halfhearted anti-Muslim violent incidents.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52403246]Oh I'm not defending the ban, in fact the only example that pops into mind of a perpetrator being from a banned country is the Ohio State University attack which makes a pretty short list of examples backing up the ban.[/QUOTE] Plus the 90 days have passed and doesn't seem like they have any idea " what the hell is going on". The ban just makes zero sense. At least it's been watered down a bit and I'm hopeful they will shut it down in oct.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52403291]A better argument against the ban is this: Trump has claimed that the ban is in response to intel of specific, immediate threats. During the five months his ban has been suspended, how many attacks have occurred? Have there even been any attempts? Even domestic terrorism has been ridiculously low, outside a few halfhearted anti-Muslim violent incidents.[/QUOTE] pretty much at this point the only reason they're still going with it is because it was a campaign promise
Of note is that all three dissents thus far (including Thomas and Gorsuch) are of the opinion that the injunction should be rejected outright, effectively instating the full Order. Not even the most liberal of the Court's members, Justice Ginsburg, stood against this. Also noteworthy is that the response makes no mention of the President's campaign statements -- their relevance to the case was not alluded to once, only in the case outline. This may change after the full hearing, but as of now this is looking to be a very favorable outcome for the executive branch.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52403713]Of note is that all three dissents thus far (including Thomas and Gorsuch) are of the opinion that the injunction should be rejected outright, effectively instating the full Order. Not even the most liberal of the Court's members, Justice Ginsburg, stood against this. Also noteworthy is that the response makes no mention of the President's campaign statements -- their relevance to the case was not alluded to once, only in the case outline. This may change after the full hearing, but as of now this is looking to be a very favorable outcome for the executive branch.[/QUOTE] You'd have to be nuts to think that Ginsburg isn't going to use this case to kick this thing to the curb once and for all. This is right up her alley. That said, the majority's argument is weak and doesn't really point to any conclusive legal reasoning. Further, it already upholds the original order that Trump campaigned on (banning based on national origin or religion) - that sounds like a loss to me since there's basically no recovering from that. The order is gutted so badly and the opinion warns that an indefinite blanket ban isn't going to fly in general - it would probably have to be temporary and limited.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.