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

[GennGreymane]

Hey bro, were having a liberal echo chamber here, k. Dont bring facts into this. FUCK TRUMP AHHHHHHH THE WORLD! ITS ENDING! FUCKIN REPUBS! ALL EVIL HORRIBLE RACIST FUCKERS!

Lol, someone actually defending Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[Cebel]

It really is. Trump had to drag this issue, kicking and screaming, through several courts, a rewrite, taking months past the deadline, until SCoTUS allowed part of the ban to continue, and then later in the fall hear the full-out case. This is not "Trump says so thusly it comes to be" by any stretch of the imagination.

Lmao. Yea god forbid he bring his issue through the court system, you know. The legal way. Through the LEGAL system. Get a grip.

[Captain N]

People have a lack of understanding in general.

Fixed that for you -- Remember where you're at.

[Cebel]

Lol, someone actually defending Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

It's not defending them. It's explaining why they arent necessarily needed to be on the list. Do I agree with it? No. But do I think the current ban plan is a step in the right direction? Absolutely.

[GennGreymane]

Lmao. Yea god forbid he bring his issue through the court system, you know. The legal way. Through the LEGAL system. Get a grip.

Somehow I think you are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not defending them. It's explaining why they arent necessarily needed to be on the list. Do I agree with it? No. But do I think the current ban plan is a step in the right direction? Absolutely.

Considering the amount of leverage Saudi Arabia (oil) has as well as Pakistan (nukes pointed at india and ability to give them to terrorists if we stop giving them money). Yeah, the country that funded and the country that harbored Bin Laden.

[GennGreymane]

The countries that are the most involved in sending and funding terrorists to the USA shouldn't necessarily be on the list?

A step in the right direction? It's pretty naive if you think there'll ever be another step to include those countries.

Then there is Egypt where things are quiet, but last time they were prevalent in the news things were pretty shady.

[Breccia]

Yea god forbid he bring his issue through the court system, you know. The legal way. Through the LEGAL system

Um...you do know we're talking about the Muslim Ban, right? The one he didn't try to bring through the legal system, but instead tried to say it and thusly make it so? The one that was dragged to the legal system by other people, where it was smacked down three times?

Nothing about what you wrote is defendable, sarcastic or otherwise.

[Bullettime]

It's not defending them. It's explaining why they arent necessarily needed to be on the list. Do I agree with it? No. But do I think the current ban plan is a step in the right direction? Absolutely.

The problem is that Trump himself has blown multiple holes in the possible defense of the constitutionally questionable aspects of his own EO. The SC allowed through the parts that are within his authority as president but want a formal hearing on the rest. Trump may still find himself fucked on those areas as he's outright on Twitter claimed it was a MUSLIM BAN, members of his cabinet and immediate outreach have said it's a Muslim ban, and the measure was supposed to be temporary pending adjustments to the immigration and vetting process which he hasn't even started to touch while also leaving the Department of State as an empty husk.

[iperson]

Supreme Court overrules unconstitutional over reach of lower courts. Nice.

[Orbitus]

Supreme Court overrules unconstitutional over reach of lower courts. Nice.

Not really. They only allowed partial implementation until they hear the full case in the fall. You would know this if you read the links.

[Deleted]

lol

"When liberal judges rule in liberal ways it's bias. When conservative judges rule in conservative ways it's being right."

This isn't a right/left issue.
The constitution is very clear, Absent statutory rules, the executive can do pretty much whatever he wants in regards to immigration.

- - - Updated - - -

Lmao. Yea god forbid he bring his issue through the court system, you know. The legal way. Through the LEGAL system. Get a grip.

Remember when he was an autocrat who shat on the laws and the judiciary?

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. They only allowed partial implementation until they hear the full case in the fall. You would know this if you read the links.

If they hear the case - The EO is a temporary measure, and will be over before the hearing, so they can declare it moot and vacate all rulings.
And if they hear the case, they are most likely going to rule in the president's favor (hence them lifting the injunction).

[Kujako]

The constitution is very clear, Absent statutory rules, the executive can do pretty much whatever he wants in regards to immigration.

Unless (as a crazy example) the POTUS said it would include a religion check so that Christians could still get in but not Muslims. Cause the Constitution has these pesky Amendments and stuff.

[Mafic]

Unless (as a crazy example) the POTUS said it would include a religion check so that Christians could still get in but not Muslims. Cause the Constitution has these pesky Amendments and stuff.

That doesn't have any bearing to be honest.

The President has the authority to exclude immigrants on any criteria. Immigrants do not have the rights and privileges of US citizens.

[Elegiac]

That doesn't have any bearing to be honest.

The President has the authority to exclude immigrants on any criteria. Immigrants do not have the rights and privileges of US citizens.

Really doesn't matter; the issue is the government favoring one religion over another which is a restriction of the government itself, not a right of the immigrants in question.

[Deleted]

Unless (as a crazy example) the POTUS said it would include a religion check so that Christians could still get in but not Muslims. Cause the Constitution has these pesky Amendments and stuff.

Doesn't matter.
The relevant legal point is a statute that forbids the executive to discriminate on religious grounds, not the first amendment.

[Orbitus]

That doesn't have any bearing to be honest.

The President has the authority to exclude immigrants on any criteria. Immigrants do not have the rights and privileges of US citizens.

Yes actually it does. And yes immigrants do. Otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled it that way before.

[Deleted]

Really doesn't matter; the issue is the government favoring one religion over another which is a restriction of the government itself, not a right of the immigrants in question.

Whether or not Tweets are a valid metric is also a question for the court to decide on (and one where they were fairly clear that its not).

[Mafic]

Really doesn't matter; the issue is the government favoring one religion over another which is a restriction of the government itself, not a right of the immigrants in question.

Well we are going to find out what the SC says in the Fall, because it can go either way in terms of interpretation.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter.
The relevant legal point is a statute that forbids the executive to discriminate on religious grounds, not the first amendment.

We are going to find out soon enough if that holds up but I can see it going the other way.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes actually it does. And yes immigrants do. Otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled it that way before.

I don't see the SC going on precedent from previous SC rulings this time around IMO.

[Elegiac]

Well we are going to find out what the SC says in the Fall, because it can go either way in terms of interpretation.

And I fully expect them to issue another Citizens United ruling in terms of its stupidity.

[Deleted]

Yes actually it does. And yes immigrants do. Otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled it that way before.

What case law are you talking about?
Because that's pretty firmly on the side of trump - The decision quotes liberally from it.

- - - Updated - - -

Well we are going to find out what the SC says in the Fall, because it can go either way in terms of interpretation.

Not really - reversing the injunction means they think its more likely Trump will prevail (otherwise they wouldn't reverse the injunction).

We are going to find out soon enough if that holds up but I can see it going the other way.

It may go one way or another, but the constitution is clear - Immigration policy is mostly outside of the remit of the courts.
Whatever policy the executive sets is constitutional as far as they are concerned - Congress can make whatever laws they like, and they can only really step in to tell the executive to stick to whatever congress decided.
But congress could tomorrow pass the 'no immigration from the arab world act' and they would have no remit to declare it unconstitutional.
For hundreds of years, US immigration policy was explicitly racist - Congress could make it racist tomorrow if they wanted.