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

[Daelak]

No, it had everything to do with the case.
They lifted the injunction because they believe the government will prevail in October.
If they didn't, they wouldn't have lifted the injunction.

This is all conjecture. Their statement had nothing to do with the merits of the case, just as a public statement that they would hear it. Besides, like what I have said before, the government can neither argue on imminent threat, since there has been any credible reason or evidence that people traveling to the US from these countries are dangerous, and two, Trump himself has repeatedly said it is a muslim ban, which contradicts the government's own case.

[Deleted]

Regardless of the ban being legal or not, the entire effort is complete bullshit. It was suppose to be temporary while they put in place something better. As others have pointed out it's been more than 90 days since the first ban. If it was truly meant to be temporary then there's no need for it now because they should already have everything finished and in place... right?

But of course they don't. They still want to use the ban because it was never about keeping the country safe.

It is truly said to see how many uniformed opinions get posted.

When the judge in Hawaii blocked the E.O., he blocked the entirety of Section 2 - including the part about the vetting process.He PREVENTED the Trump admin from doing ANYTHING regarding the review and implementation of any vetting procedures. It was not until the 9th ruled on the appeal, in early June, that they allowed Trump admin to move forward:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/ninth-circuit-mandate-vetting/index.html

"Washington (CNN)While the most controversial provisions of the President's revised ban blocking travel to the US remain tied up in the courts, a federal appeals court formally cleared the way late Monday for different portions of the executive order to move forward.

The Trump administration can now conduct internal reviews of other countries' vetting procedures for visa applicants while the broader case is on review in the US Supreme Court.Last week a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a lower court's decision to halt the core provisions of President Donald Trump's revised executive order that attempted to limit travel from six predominately Muslim countries and block refugees.

However, the 9th Circuit concluded that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision was overbroad in certain limited respects, and reversed the portions of Watson's ruling that barred the administration from conducting internal reviews of other countries' vetting procedures -- a move Secretary John Kelly called a "big win" last week in an interview with CNN's Tal Kopan."

- - - Updated - - -

This is a fraction of the bill that was proposed.....

Oh really? Please point out what is "only a fraction" - they implemented the entirety of the 2nd E.O. Please, go read the E.O and come back here and tell us what they DID NOT implement. You should quit parroting the mainstream media as your own opinion.

The media posted that "opinion" because they didn't like the fact that Trump and the SCOTUS kicked their pathetic asses - as well as the 4th and 9th. That opinion is nothing but a sad attempt to save face. Too bad it is complete bullshit.

Because, obviously, it's bullshit and this is just a farce to pretend they passed the Muslim ban they promised their gullible voters.

The best part about the SCOTUS is that they actually ruled on the law - unlike the 4th and the 9th that ruled on "feelings". Did you notice in the SCOTUS decision there was not ONE mention about anything to do with "Muslims"? The SCOTUS backed Trump 9-0 on his supposed "Muslim " ban.

You folks are going to be in for a VERY rude surprise in October when the SCOTUS is going to affirm, point blank, that Trump could actually ban Muslims (or anyone) by name and no amount of temper tantrums from some pathetic activist DA's and judges will be able to do a damn thing to stop it.

[Daelak]

The best part about the SCOTUS is that they actually ruled on the law - unlike the 4th and the 9th that ruled on "feelings". Did you notice in the SCOTUS decision there was not ONE mention about anything to do with "Muslims"? The SCOTUS - backed Trump 9-0 on his "Muslim " ban.

They didn't rule on the law, they ruled on hearing the case in October.

[Deleted]

They didn't rule on the law, they ruled on hearing the case in October.

Let me spell this out more clearly - their opinion to ALLOW the Travel Ban was based on the actual rule of law, as opposed to the pathetic "feelings" that were used to issue the 4th and 9th opinions. Go read the SCOTUS opinion.

[Daelak]

Let me spell this out more clearly - their opinion to ALLOW the Travel Ban was based on the actual rule of law, as opposed to the pathetic "feelings" that were used to issue the 4th and 9th opinions. Go read the SCOTUS opinion.

No one used "feelings", they stated it would cause undue hardship on their constituents.

[Deleted]

No one used "feelings", they stated it would cause undue hardship on their constituents.

LOL

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...-rules-federal

While the text of the Muslim ban “speaks with vague words of national security,” the court recognized that in context it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The ban’s message of religious condemnation is contrary to the bedrock constitutional requirement that the government remain neutral among religions: “When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the inevitable result is hatred, disrespect and even contempt towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line.”

So nice that the SCOTUS told the ACLU, the 4th, and the 9th to go fuck themselves.

[Daelak]

LOL

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...-rules-federal



So nice that the SCOTUS told the ACLU, the 4th, and the 9th to go fuck themselves.

That has nothing to do with feelings, and SCOTUS hasn't even responded to those allegations from the plaintiffs, that will occur in October.

[Deleted]

That has nothing to do with feelings, and SCOTUS hasn't even responded to those allegations from the plaintiffs, that will occur in October.

Pointless to even bother to respond to you. Have a nice day

[Daelak]

Pointless to even bother to respond to you. Have a nice day

You didn't show where "feelings" came up anywhere in any of the rulings.

[Kujako]

You didn't show where "feelings" came up anywhere in any of the rulings.

They "felt" that Trump flat out saying it was a ban based on religion made it a ban based on religion. FEELS!

[unfilteredJW]

Pointless to even bother to respond to you. Have a nice day

Ransath running away when shown wrong yet again.

I could make a collage at this point.

[Realitytrembles]

Those who aren't US citizens are here at our sufferance. People who aren't American don't have any inherent right to be here. I think it's fairly clear that the POTUS has broad powers over which non-citizens are allowed to cross our borders.

[Deleted]

Those who aren't US citizens are here at our sufferance. People who aren't American don't have any inherent right to be here. I think it's fairly clear that the POTUS has broad powers over which non-citizens are allowed to cross our borders.

See, what you are doing is, a plain text reading of the constitution.
Instead of the interpretative readings that can be used to ignore certain parts of it, and pretend other parts applies to contexts where it doesn't.

[Orbitus]

Pointless to even bother to respond to you. Have a nice day

Pointless, because you got your ass handed to you by facts? Such a shame Ransath.

[Mormolyce]

you do know that its fairly likely that the issue won't actually be heard in October, since the issue will be rendered moot when the limited duration bans expire?

What are you even contending here?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh really? Please point out what is "only a fraction" - they implemented the entirety of the 2nd E.O. Please, go read the E.O and come back here and tell us what they DID NOT implement. You should quit parroting the mainstream media as your own opinion.

The fuck are you talking about?

The SC only allowed the ban to pass on people without a relationship to the US. Which obviously is what caused a lot of the chaos at the airports in the first place, split up families etc.

[Deleted]

What are you even contending here?

That is that Trumps victory won't be 'overturned' in October.

[Mormolyce]

That is that Trumps victory won't be 'overturned' in October.

We won't know that until October, like I said.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"This proves that the position of president has full control and authority over immigration and travel policy!!! THE END!"

Man you guys weren't singing this when Obama was in office.

[Deleted]

The fuck are you talking about?

The SC only allowed the ban to pass on people without a relationship to the US. Which obviously is what caused a lot of the chaos at the airports in the first place, split up families etc.

More proof of uneducated opinions. So sad.

[Orbitus]

More proof of uneducated opinions. So sad.

Coming from you, this is fucking hilarious.