Supreme Court allows Trump’s revised travel ban to be enforced fully pending legal challenges
11 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/04/supreme-court-allows-trumps-revised-travel-ban-to-be-enforced-fully-while-legal-challenges-to-it-proceed-in-lower-courts/?tidr=notifi_push_breaking-news&pushid=5a25bd06b0a05c1d00000093"]Washington Post[/URL]
[quote]The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Trump’s request that his revised travel ban be enforced fully while legal challenges to it proceed in lower courts.
The justices approved a request from the president’s lawyers to lift restrictions on the order — which bans most travelers from eight nations, most with Muslim majorities — that had been imposed by lower courts.
The court gave no reason for its decision, but said it expected lower court review of the executive orders to proceed quickly. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have keep in place partial stays on the order.
Judges in two judicial circuits — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco — had cast doubt on Trump’s third executive order banning almost all travel from certain countries.[/quote]
[editline]4th December 2017[/editline]
Had to shorten the title. Is there precedent for this kind of shit?
Surprised by the 7-2 decision, would have expected it to be 5-4 one way or the other
[QUOTE=archangel125;52946826]Had to shorten the title. Is there precedent for this kind of shit?[/QUOTE]
We live in unprecedented times. Hell, you could argue we live in [I]unpresidented[/I] times.
Way to flake scotus. They said essentially if the admin kept circumventing their judicial review with temporary bans there would be consiquences, apparently not though
I knew they would try anything to use their racism as law.
They're letting it fly while they debate the legality of it, they haven't said it's legal or illegal yet
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52947454]They're letting it fly while they debate the legality of it, they haven't said it's legal or illegal yet[/QUOTE]
It should be illegal due to the reasons it's already been shut down though? How the hell can the Supreme Court hear the arguments that shot it down to begin with and think "Y'know maybe we need to look more into this but in the meantime go on bannin' muzzies"?
That is what I'd also like to know. It's supposed to remain suspended while it's debated in court.
I'm not sure what the article means when it says the court gave no reason for it's decision. Unless I'm missing something, their reasoning is right here: [URL]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf[/URL]
It also isn't quite what the article says. The SC didn't lift all injunctions. They narrowed them. Both cases in lower courts had to do with barring entry of family members of United States Citizens, but the lower courts chose to stop the entire order, even for people with no relation to anyone in the US. The SC saw this as overreach and lifted the block on stopping those with no connection to the US. They left the injunction in effect when it comes to people with already established relations to those in the US (like family members, employers, universities, etc.). So if you have an already documented relationship with some entity in the US, then you can't be banned entry. If you have no relation, then you can be banned entry.
In effect, they continued the stoppage of the ban were it was relevant to the cases being tried.
I posted the story right as it was breaking and the article consisted of a two lines. In about ninety seconds it had filled out some more and I added more to the OP, but the SC had, as of then, still provided no explanation. Click the link to the source, and you'll probably see they've changed that.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52948632]I posted the story right as it was breaking and the article consisted of a two lines. In about ninety seconds it had filled out some more and I added more to the OP, but the SC had, as of then, still provided no explanation. Click the link to the source, and you'll probably see they've changed that.[/QUOTE]
The WaPo article is paywalled for me. So what was their claim that the entire injunction had been lifted based on?
Our government is compromised from top to bottom
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.