Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Glengarry

Supreme Court allows President Trump’s travel ban on 6 Muslim-majority countries to go fully into effect

52 posts in this topic

“The justices say in an order Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel safer already. I can stop checking under my bed for moose limbs before going to bed a night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

I feel safer already. I can stop checking under my bed for moose limbs before going to bed a night. 

Try deer antler spray .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

I feel safer already. I can stop checking under my bed for moose limbs before going to bed a night. 

Really not the issue, more important at this point is end to some of the usurpation of Presidential powers that the lower courts have allowed since Trump took office. We can expect a lot more rulings like this when cases reach adult court where even some of of the liberal justices at least follow the constitution and rule of law in clear cut matters- unlike the partisan liberal anti-Trumpers that make up way too much of the lower federal courts- who have simply ruled against Trump, the constitution, law and precedent be damned. Trump is changing the federal judiciary day by day-- way too slow, but, we'll get there. 

Edited by Saticon3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcorioles said:

Another win.

 

Another?

What else exactly has Trump won?

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, songfourone said:

 

Another?

What else exactly has Trump won?

 

:D

Supreme Court nom.

Tax Cuts

Travel Ban

Next up .......no Trump indictment or anything to do with "collusion".

 

Feel free to pin this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcorioles said:

Supreme Court nom.

Tax Cuts

Travel Ban

Next up .......no Trump indictment or anything to do with "collusion".

 

Feel free to pin this.

The Trump tax cuts is law?

Do tell.

Travel ban stands with many challenges in the wings.

Supreme nom was stolen by the whiny pubs.  

So much whining and very little winning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, songfourone said:

 

Another?

What else exactly has Trump won?

 

:D

Your hearts and minds.....plus he's helping many on the left improve their cardiovascular health.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr Johnny Fever said:

Your hearts and minds.....plus he's helping many on the left improve their cardiovascular health.:lol:

 

Obviously only Trump supporters have lost their hearts and minds.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleasantly surprised Kagan was with the majority and a little disappointed Ginsburg didn’t go that way.  While I rarely agree with her, the woman is unarguably brilliant.  Not sure what the 4th and 9th Circuits can possibly do now that the Court has essentially said “Of course this is within the President’s purview” and by the way “get your cases up here quickly.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Pleasantly surprised Kagan was with the majority and a little disappointed Ginsburg didn’t go that way.  While I rarely agree with her, the woman is unarguably brilliant.  Not sure what the 4th and 9th Circuits can possibly do now that the Court has essentially said “Of course this is within the President’s purview” and by the way “get your cases up here quickly.”

I don’t know what was argued in court but the 1965 Immigration Act clearly states that you can’t discriminate based on country of birth. 

My problem with the Ban is it’s unnecessary and banning entire nations of people isn’t an effective way to prevent terrorism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, soulflower said:

I don’t know what was argued in court but the 1965 Immigration Act clearly states that you can’t discriminate based on country of birth. 

My problem with the Ban is it’s unnecessary and banning entire nations of people isn’t an effective way to prevent terrorism

From your second point, I tend to agree that the restrictions on entry, as it is not really a ban, won’t add much to the prevention of terrorism.

To your first point, it is not a ban on nation of birth entry; it is a ban on entry from 6 nation’s with largely failed governing structures.

More importantly, it leaves the responsibility and authority to take actions to protect the nation where it belongs: in the executive branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Pleasantly surprised Kagan was with the majority and a little disappointed Ginsburg didn’t go that way.  While I rarely agree with her, the woman is unarguably brilliant.  Not sure what the 4th and 9th Circuits can possibly do now that the Court has essentially said “Of course this is within the President’s purview” and by the way “get your cases up here quickly.”

Why are you still masquerading as a moderate? I'd respect you more if you didn't try to present yourself as someone you're clearly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

From your second point, I tend to agree that the restrictions on entry, as it is not really a ban, won’t add much to the prevention of terrorism.

To your first point, it is not a ban on nation of birth entry; it is a ban on entry from 6 nation’s with largely failed governing structures.

More importantly, it leaves the responsibility and authority to take actions to protect the nation where it belongs: in the executive branch.

There are countries not on the List which have citizens who have committed terrorism against America (ie Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc). 

Also, some of the countries are on the List for political, not practical reasons (ie Iran and North Korea). 

But as to my first point, I don’t see how a blanket Ban on people who are born in those countries isn’t discriminatory. 

Entry into the US or Immigration should be approved or denied on a Case by Case basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, songfourone said:

“The justices say in an order Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts”.

 

I thought it was only going to take 6 months for the vetting? What progress have they made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Pleasantly surprised Kagan was with the majority and a little disappointed Ginsburg didn’t go that way.  While I rarely agree with her, the woman is unarguably brilliant.  Not sure what the 4th and 9th Circuits can possibly do now that the Court has essentially said “Of course this is within the President’s purview” and by the way “get your cases up here quickly.”

The case is about irreparable harm. If it is in the President’s powers is yet to be litigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heisenberg said:

Why are you still masquerading as a moderate? I'd respect you more if you didn't try to present yourself as someone you're clearly not.

And what is so immoderate about my post?  

I point out that Justice Kagan voted in the majority. That Kagan tends toward a liberal application is well known and widely accepted and this opinion is much more a conservative application of the Constitution. To me, in my limited understanding of things Constitutional, it was fairly obvious, so Kagan’s vote was a surprise.  I also have a great deal of respect for Justice Ginsburg.  I rarely agree with her, but her reasoning is usually easy to follow and her grasp of the Constitution is exceptional.  That she offered no explanation for her dissent adds to my confusion over her vote.

The Court allowed the travel restrictions to go into full effect by a 7-2 vote.  That is a fairly strong statement of their position.  The Court told the 4th and the 9th to get the resolution of their cases to the Court “with dispatch”.  One can be reasonably assume that the Court thinks this is pretty straightforward and wants to get it ended.

What is immoderate in any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A curious "win" to say the least.

The policy is pointless, other than to be be mean and racist, which his base loves.

Is it just that the baby got his way? Is that the victory?

If it's true that the president has the constitutional right to ban anyone he wants, why wouldn't he have it to allow people to stay? After all, Congress doesnt allocate the money to deport everyone who is here illegally,  so if the president can unilaterally decide some people, because if who they are, are an inherent danger and can't come in, why can't he simply make the unilateral decision that the Dreamers can stay? He seemed to agree with this the first 8 months of his term, woke up one day to find himself embroiled deeper in scandal and lashed out at those least able to defend themselves. 

Ah, the life of an emotionally stunted bully who happens to he president.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

From your second point, I tend to agree that the restrictions on entry, as it is not really a ban, won’t add much to the prevention of terrorism.

To your first point, it is not a ban on nation of birth entry; it is a ban on entry from 6 nation’s with largely failed governing structures.

More importantly, it leaves the responsibility and authority to take actions to protect the nation where it belongs: in the executive branch.

They may be a backwards theocracy, but how is Iran a failed governing structure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0