High Court reinstates Trump travel ban, will hear arguments

[james_1957]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

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

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d2...ravel-Ban/id-a4aaa83cbfb04753998bf4e3f9cce362

 

[Adre]

It's a watered down version, no big deal.

 

[Adre]

it wasnt watered down,

SHOW US THE ABUNDANT RW HATE SPEECH

It lets people from those countries in, so it's not a ban. Try to be less stupid.

 

[hsnh]

So it was a temporary measure after all. In order to update the screening procedures.
After all, we're all in a state of war with ISIS, they need to be cautious.

Leftists are nuts.

 

[Adre]

WHERE ARE THE ABUNDANT RW HATE SPEECH

Just go back through your threads. It's abundant.

 

[Rightguide]

Basically dumped on activist jurists like those in the 9th Circus.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's a watered down version, no big deal.

Watered down version?? No big deal?? Are you nuts?

From the Court's opinion:

A
To begin, we grant both of the Government’s petitions for certiorari and consolidate the cases for argument. The Clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017. (The Government has not requested that we expedite consideration of the merits to a greater extent.) In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following question: “Whether the challenges to §2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.”

B
We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Granting certiorari means that ALL the contentious issues in the petitions will be reviewed by the high Court, as they should be. The June 14th date is significant in that the original Executive Order stipulated a specific time frame under which the Trump administration would work out a vetting procedure covering "foreign nationals who [have] a bona fide relationship with a person....in the United States." With that in mind, I suspect it is likely the Court will find that challenges to §2(c) did become moot on that date.

But everything else is up for grabs, including the bankrupt notion that the national security interests of the United States are superseded by a First Amendment prohibition on religious discrimination -- in the exact same way that the Court has upheld the principle that protected speech does NOT included that which is "intended or likely to result in imminent harm."

For that matter, even the portion of the injunction that remains in place may be ruled upon "on the merits" even if enforcement is found to be mooted by the June 14th date. Although maybe not since the Court frequently declines to rule on anything less than current, active controversies.

But don't kid yourself. This WHOLE thing is a very big deal.

 

[Liar]

So it was a temporary measure after all. In order to update the screening procedures.
After all, we're all in a state of war with ISIS, they need to be cautious.

Leftists are nuts.

They've had half a year now to review and come up with updated screening procedures. What's taking them so long? Sould be done by now so what's the need for the ban at this point? Are they claiming it can't be done in parallell while the current proceedings are being practiced? That sounds like a pretty flimsy argument. I'd like to hear what the non hyperbolic rationale for that is.

Unless of course it wasn't actually that the ban was about.

 

[Rightguide]

It seems clear as well that aside from those foreigners related to American citizens, the President has the clear authority to institute any travel ban temporary or not. Am I wrong?

 

[Adre]

The ban is partial, thus not a big deal. It lets in the people who have a reason to be here. That's all I was referring to, not the future effects of any SC rulings on the issue.

 

[Adre]

It seems clear as well that aside from those foreigners related to American citizens, the President has the clear authority to institute any travel ban temporary or not. Am I wrong?

Your legal expertise notwithstanding, I believe the SC actually intends to decide the issue themselves.

 

[water505]

Obama's legacy and leftist ideology are falling apart right before our very eyes. Liberalism is a sinking ship.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Watered down version?? No big deal?? Are you nuts?

From the Court's opinion:


Granting certiorari means that ALL the contentious issues in the petitions will be reviewed by the high Court, as they should be. The June 14th date is significant in that the original Executive Order stipulated a specific time frame under which the Trump administration would work out a vetting procedure covering "foreign nationals who [have] a bona fide relationship with a person....in the United States." With that in mind, I suspect it is likely the Court will find that challenges to §2(c) did become moot on that date.

But everything else is up for grabs, including the bankrupt notion that the national security interests of the United States are superseded by a First Amendment prohibition on religious discrimination -- in the exact same way that the Court has upheld the principle that protected speech does NOT included that which is "intended or likely to result in imminent harm."

For that matter, even the portion of the injunction that remains in place may be ruled upon "on the merits" even if enforcement is found to be mooted by the June 14th date. Although maybe not since the Court frequently declines to rule on anything less than current, active controversies.

But don't kid yourself. This WHOLE thing is a very big deal.

Adre seems to be vying for SgtSpidey's crown. He never really directly says what he means and then his defense is to throw up nonsense and expects to be taken seriously as you just did. But I, too, get bored and sometimes try to entertain his convoluted thoughts such as his comparison of accomplishments by Obama and Trump. Obama was light, sunshine and unicorns and Trump was well...



Orange Hitler or maybe South Park Satan.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The ban is partial, thus not a big deal. It lets in the people who have a reason to be here. That's all I was referring to, not the future effects of any SC rulings on the issue.

And that was the problem with the first executive order, which is why the President had to do a second amended order. But it's the judicial attack on the second amended order which is bogus and deserves repudiation. Hopefully, the Court will do its duty and uphold the principle that people who don't have a right or reason to be here TRULY DON'T have a right to be here.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If certain political types hadn't went judge shopping, the "Muslim Ban" would have already expired...


Dumb masses.


[Say it fast.]

 

[Adre]

Adre seems to be vying for SgtSpidey's crown. He never really directly says what he means and then his defense is to throw up nonsense and expects to be taken seriously as you just did. But I, too, get bored and sometimes try to entertain his convoluted thoughts such as his comparison of accomplishments by Obama and Trump. Obama was light, sunshine and unicorns and Trump was well...



Orange Hitler or maybe South Park Satan.

And yet many choose to engage with me. Do yourself a favor and put me on ignore.

 

[Que]

And that was the problem with the first executive order, which is why the President had to do a second amended order. But it's the judicial attack on the second amended order which is bogus and deserves repudiation. Hopefully, the Court will do its duty and uphold the principle that people who don't have a right or reason to be here TRULY DON'T have a right to be here.

Even without hearing arguments yet the court is already saying that the lower Court's did not have the authority to tell a sitting president of the United States that he is temporarily restrained from exercising his executive authority.

There is no way that the burden of proof was met for that to happen in this particular case.

Just with regard to their standing in the case..the plaintiffs are really out on a very thin limb.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, and a lot of people chose to touch a lot of posters with a ten-foot pole just to amuse themselves.


Just because you are covered in little red rings does not make you popular, witty or smart.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Even without hearing arguments yet the court is already saying that the lower Courts did not have the authority to tell a sitting president of the United States that he is temporarily restrained from exercising his executive authority.

There is no way that the burden of proof was met for that to happen in this particular case.

Just with regard to their standing in the case..the plaintiffs are really out on a very thin limb.

If campaign rhetoric can be considered the burden of proof, then a large percentage of our politicians are unfit to govern...

 

[about_average]

They've had half a year now to review and come up with updated screening procedures. What's taking them so long? Sould be done by now so what's the need for the ban at this point? Are they claiming it can't be done in parallell while the current proceedings are being practiced? That sounds like a pretty flimsy argument. I'd like to hear what the non hyperbolic rationale for that is.

Unless of course it wasn't actually that the ban was about.

That was my first question,
if the ban was just temporary while they developed new vetting and they were going to have the "Xtreme vetting" in place by June 14, what difference does it make now, because as of June 14 the ban would have been lifted.

So I wonder what the answer is as to why they need to implement it in 72 hours.
1 - Trump was lying about it being temporary
2 - Turmp's administration is incompetent.


As for the nation security aspects, I'm going to guess that with a Muslim ban (Trump's words) in place it will make things worse for the country, especially considering that after his first call for it he started appearing in terrorist recruiting videos.

There are the Muslim informants, how many will be willing to help us if they think they'll likely be stuck in the country with the people they informed on.

Then there are the Muslims who are not informants who may decide there's no reason now to just assist Americans in any way whatsoever.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Even without hearing arguments yet the court is already saying that the lower Court's did not have the authority to tell a sitting president of the United States that he is temporarily restrained from exercising his executive authority.

There is no way that the burden of proof was met for that to happen in this particular case.

Just with regard to their standing in the case..the plaintiffs are really out on a very thin limb.

While I am tempted to agree with you, I just don't think we can quite jump to that conclusion. The grounds for granting or denying an injunction MAY be far different from the grounds on which Constitutional principles are ultimately sustained as originally envisioned or interpreted to "conform" to "more contemporary values."

 

[Rightguide]

While I am tempted to agree with you, I just don't think we can quite jump to that conclusion. The grounds for granting or denying an injunction MAY be far different from the grounds on which Constitutional principles are ultimately sustained as originally envisioned or interpreted to "conform" to "more contemporary values."

I see the court actually referred to the "plenary" powers pf Congress and the President. Hope that didn't hurt too bad.

I predict their Fall decision will take the lower courts apart in detail on the national security issues and delve deeper into those "plenary" powers and The Political Question Doctrine.

 

[Que]

While I am tempted to agree with you, I just don't think we can quite jump to that conclusion. The grounds for granting or denying an injunction MAY be far different from the grounds on which Constitutional principles are ultimately sustained as originally envisioned or interpreted to "conform" to "more contemporary values."

He could still lose on the merits at SCOTUS. What has been decided though is that the lower Court's did not have the authority to issue an injunction, they should have passed the buck to SCOTUS. That TRO was lifted without a hearing which I think says that SCOTUS sees it for the bullshit that it was.

If any federal judge in the country can tie up the executive branch on a whim, no president could function.

 

[Rightguide]

He could still lose on the merits at SCOTUS. What has been decided though is that the lower Court's did not have the authority to issue an injunction, they should have passed the buck to SCOTUS. That TRO was lifted without a hearing which I think says that SCOTUS sees it for the bullshit that it was.

If any federal judge in the country can tie up the executive branch on a whim, no president could function.

The decision seems to fortify Trump's firing of Sally Yates who assured us the ban was unconstitutional. Apparently liberals hallucinations aren't the law, who knew?

 

[phrodeau]

Trump's idea of "extreme vetting" allowed Michael Flynn to be in office. Any changes he makes to immigration procedures needs to be examined very carefully. Trump simply does not have good judgment. I doubt that they will ever exceed the level of vetting Obama has in place.