SC allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban, will consider case in Fall

[Deleted]

This is a power the President has as per the US constitution. I expect it to be fully upheld when it gets its day in court.

[Bullettime]

The ruling on whether the ban is constitutional or not takes place in October. They are allowing it to partially go through until they hear arguments / make a ruling then.

Correct. It's a compromise measure that also isn't a full blown ban like Trump intended. It still allows a significant amount of movement provided those parties have a legit reason to be here or would be negatively harmed from the travel. Existing visa holders, visa applicants, etc are not affected by this at all. It puts a temporary stop to leisure travel and refugees. The actual ruling will be held later on whether Trump's full ban is constitutional or not.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a power the President has as per the US constitution. I expect it to be fully upheld when it gets its day in court.

The full ban is questionable with the scope it was trying to cover while also providing exemptions to countries Trump does business with. The SC allowed other elements of it to pass but they didn't reinstate the full thing and won't make a proper judgment until they do a formal hearing.

[masterhorus8]

For all of you idiots that are saying "see? it was within his power!" are clearly not understanding what happened. The fact that they only implemented parts of it shows that not all of it was *probably within his powers.

[GennGreymane]

They implemented all of it, they just carved out an exception for a limited number of people.

Hello turner. And thats not implementing all of it. Also you equate limited with small.

[Bullettime]

They implemented all of it, they just carved out an exception for a limited number of people.

The "limited number of people" you're referring to were the primary ones affected and the main reason it was shot to hell so fast, along with fact that it allowed non Muslims from those countries to still travel.

edit: So yeah, this is only a half win and was a compromise measure by the SC. Blocking the entire ruling did infringe on Trump's executives powers so they couldn't let the whole thing stay struck down. But they allowed the parts of the ban that were within his authority be enacted until a formal hearing can be done on the full measure.

[masterhorus8]

They implemented all of it, they just carved out an exception for a limited number of people.

"All of it, but not all of it." :thinking:

[kail]

In all honesty, all jokes about terrorism aside. I scratch my head wondering why people feel like ANYONE automatically deserves to come to this country.

We have a vetting/immigration process.

[masterhorus8]

They implemented all of it, they just added a caveat.


It is of no matter, Trump will prevail 100% in October.

"All"


Stay woke

[Bullettime]

We have a vetting/immigration process.

Which is the other interesting note. The ban was claimed to only be intended as a temporary measure until reform to our immigration and vetting process could be done. His "extreme vetting."

Trump not taking any steps in that direction so far, and with no seeming plan in the near future, could very well hurt his SC case through him blowing yet another hole through his own ruling and argument. The first hole being his own comments on TV, Twitter, and comments made by people close to him about the ruling.

[Gamevizier]

Its been more than 90 days since talks of this ban began. The main reason behind the ban was to implement new immigration and vetting proccesses and overhaul the current one which can still be done without having a ban in place.

The fact that they havent done so yet shows that this adminiatration is full of shit: they have no plan, they just wanted to make a controversial gesture to please the simple-minded idiots who voted for them.

What do you think would've happened if the ban was implemented and enforced the first time? They would've just asked for its extension while they work on their "great plan" to overhaul the nation's immigration process.

"We got a plan! It's a great plan!" Only gets you so far.

[Zeek Daniels]

The ban is toothless IMO. It lacks places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Maybe if those countries didnt cooperate and were not failed states like the ones on the banned list this would be the case. The problem you dont seem to realise is that Obama made this list. This is a list of countries that have centers for terrorism and whos governments are either uncooperative in vetting their citizens or cant vet there citizens because they just are not capable. Trumps ban on these countries was so that we could temporarily halt travel from these countries to try and review our vetting process with these nations. And if the process was up to security standards then these would go off the list. However if the governments refuse to vet or cannot vet then they would be permanently banned until they could vet properly.

So all the muslim countries that vet properly because they have functioning governments are not on the list for that reason.

[Paranoid Android]

I will say it is within POTUS' right. I laugh at more of the countries not targeted showing how ill planned and more political than trying to be effective.

This is a foreshadowing that SCOTUS will rule in favor in October.

[Xeones]

I don't understand why the supreme court would allow any parts of a "temporary" travel ban that has at this point been long over.

Overthrowing the lower courts verdicts for no clear reason when they won't hold the case for over 3 months is bizarre.

[GennGreymane]

Maybe if those countries didnt cooperate and were not failed states like the ones on the banned list this would be the case. The problem you dont seem to realise is that Obama made this list. This is a list of countries that have centers for terrorism and whos governments are either uncooperative in vetting their citizens or cant vet there citizens because they just are not capable. Trumps ban on these countries was so that we could temporarily halt travel from these countries to try and review our vetting process with these nations. And if the process was up to security standards then these would go off the list. However if the governments refuse to vet or cannot vet then they would be permanently banned until they could vet properly.

So all the muslim countries that vet properly because they have functioning governments are not on the list for that reason.

Yeah, just harping that Obama did it is a pointless argument.

[Edge-]

Yeah, just harping that Obama did it is a pointless argument.

But if we can just blame everything on Obama and Hillary, even the things that we've been calling "FAKE NEWS" for months, then surely everything will be alright!

[GennGreymane]

But if we can just blame everything on Obama and Hillary, even the things that we've been calling "FAKE NEWS" for months, then surely everything will be alright!

Oh of course. They always need to deflect. Saying Obama did it is like saying they have permission to do it, and if it fails, they can blame Obama. Go figure.

I was critical of the US stance of Saudi Arabia for a long time. Still am. Same with Pakistan. Everything with Egypt is dubious as well.

[Xeones]

It's too bad that you are uneducated about what you are opining.

Until 2 weeks ago, the Trump admin was barred by the Hawaiian judge from being allowed to review or implement any changes to the vetting process. It was only in the appeal issued by 9th two weeks ago that lifted that injunction. So, in other words, what you posted is completely false.

There were no articles I read that stated this. I also don't understand how a judge could possibly block the governments ability to review it's own processes and plan new ones.

[Felya]

So... 90+ days after the initial 90 day ban, there is a limited ban for 90 days, due to SCOTUS 3 month recesses. After which it will discuss the full 90 day ban? Does this seem bizarre to anyone else?

[Moralgy]

It worked for Obama for at least the first 4 years when he blamed everything on Bush.

Did he blame everything on Bush or was it people pointing out that the country did, in fact, go into a giant recession due to policies put in place during those 8 years?

[Captain N]

So... 90+ days after the initial 90 day ban, there is a limited ban for 90 days, due to SCOTUS 3 month recesses. After which it will discuss the full 90 day ban? Does this seem bizarre to anyone else?

Part of me believes that this is the SCOTUS saying -- Well you had 180 days to do something...You didn't...and nothing has happened from any of those countries still...So there's no reason to have this ban anyways.