SCOTUS ***** slaps 9th Circuit with unanimous travel ban ruling

[Old Dog]

So... when did a 5:4 ruling become unanimous? Looks like some media sources need to review before they print.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So... when did a 5:4 ruling become unanimous? Looks like some media sources need to review before they print.

I don’t follow. This thread is a year old and posted after a 9-0 ruling

woukd like to see trump shut it down 100% to prove a point. Maybe just a week. But it’s time to restore constitutional powers

 

[breakingcontact]

Defending the country from invasion: one of the very few things the federal government is supposed to do.

 

[bwframe]

How important is this next November election again???

With pending SCOTUS retirements...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How important is this next November election again???

With pending SCOTUS retirements...

We know what the democrat selections will always do. The republican selections are markedly less a sure thing over time.

 

[Birds Away]

If the ban only covers countries that have about 8% of the worldwide Muslim population how is this a Muslim ban again?

 

[flightsimmer]

The rulings from the lower courts were so brazenly calibrated as slaps at the current president entirely for ideological reasons that there was just about no other outcome, at least if SCotUS wanted to retain even a hint of credibility going forward.

IIRC, Trump's travel ban was for 90 days (?) to give his administration time to work something out. The fact that Trump won ended up being a moot point other than the fact that it has now been tested in the Supreme Court and has now set a Presedense for the future.

 

[hoosierdoc]

If the ban only covers countries that have about 8% of the worldwide Muslim population how is this a Muslim ban again?

You can’t use logic to assess a liberal attack line

 

[bwframe]

We know what the democrat selections will always do. The republican selections are markedly less a sure thing over time.

This is exactly why we cannot afford any more democrat selections on SCOTUS. Exactly why we need to come out of November with solid majorities in congress.

 

[bwframe]

We need NO more of these on the highest court in the land...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We need NO more of these on the highest court in the land...

If I were so ambitious, I'd compare her comments on this vs any she made about the Colorado wedding cake baker. I'd bet a cold drink of your choice the hypocrisy would be thick enough to cut with a knife.

 

[EMDX6043]

If I were so ambitious, I'd compare her comments on this vs any she made about the Colorado wedding cake baker. I'd bet a cold drink of your choice the hypocrisy would be thick enough to cut with a knife.

[STRIKE]Liberals[/STRIKE] Leftists aren't able to identify their own hypocrisy.

 

[Old Dog]

I don’t follow. This thread is a year old and posted after a 9-0 ruling

woukd like to see trump shut it down 100% to prove a point. Maybe just a week. But it’s time to restore constitutional powers

I thought this post was in reference to the SCOTUS decision of this week relative to the latest travel ban... 5:4 in favor of administration.

 

[bgcatty]

The judges on the 9th Ciruit are just a bunch of liberals doing their California thing and disregarding the Constutution which they are supposed to read and apply to every case instead of substituting their own liberal views for the law. Period!

 

[Libertarian01]

I was listening to NPR the other day when a reporter was explaining that the Supreme Court Justices wrote in their opinions (I haven't read them myself) that they agreed 9 - 0 that the president DOES have the legal authority to do this.

What they were arguing about had something to do with his "racist" comments and/or tweets.

My thinking is - who cares? If you agree he has the legal authority then what more is there?

Say I'm driving down the road with my bumper full of KKK racist, anti minority bumper stickers. I run a red light and a black police officer sees this and pull me over, then writes me a ticket. I broke the law! I deserve a ticket. Does it really matter whether or not he disapproves of bumper stickers? The only thing that would matter, in my opinion, was whether he was abusing his lawful authority. If I came close to running the red light but didn't, and he still gave me a ticket that would be a problem. Then he would be abusing his lawful authority and that would be a problem, just the abuse part.

If the president is abusing his authority you don't stop the use of the authority, you impeach him for abuse of power. He still has the lawful authority to do so.

I guess I'll have to read nine (9) opinions to see what the issues were.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was listening to NPR the other day when a reporter was explaining that the Supreme Court Justices wrote in their opinions (I haven't read them myself) that they agreed 9 - 0 that the president DOES have the legal authority to do this.

What they were arguing about had something to do with his "racist" comments and/or tweets.

My thinking is - who cares? If you agree he has the legal authority then what more is there?

Say I'm driving down the road with my bumper full of KKK racist, anti minority bumper stickers. I run a red light and a black police officer sees this and pull me over, then writes me a ticket. I broke the law! I deserve a ticket. Does it really matter whether or not he disapproves of bumper stickers? The only thing that would matter, in my opinion, was whether he was abusing his lawful authority. If I came close to running the red light but didn't, and he still gave me a ticket that would be a problem. Then he would be abusing his lawful authority and that would be a problem, just the abuse part.

If the president is abusing his authority you don't stop the use of the authority, you impeach him for abuse of power. He still has the lawful authority to do so.

I guess I'll have to read nine (9) opinions to see what the issues were.

Regards,

Doug

No, that's not exactly the same. The powers of the president are not universal. Intent does matter. You said yourself that abuse of lawful authority, does matter. It the president had said, for instance, I'm banning the all the nations on this list because I don't want Asian people here, you can bet that the USSC would have not viewed this in the same way as it just recently ruled. The question is whether Trump banned these nations currently on the list because he didn't want Muslims to come here. Had he simply done what he did originally, and not opened his mouth, he probably could have made the original ban fly... but he did. He called for a ban on Muslims coming to the United States, was smacked down, and then paired it down a bit. The question is whether he still had that as his intent, but made moves as far as he could (also attempting to conceal his intent), to get something approaching his original statement.

 

[indyblue]

No, that's not exactly the same. The powers of the president are not universal. Intent does matter. You said yourself that abuse of lawful authority, does matter. It the president had said, for instance, I'm banning the all the nations on this list because I don't want Asian people here, you can bet that the USSC would have not viewed this in the same way as it just recently ruled. The question is whether Trump banned these nations currently on the list because he didn't want Muslims to come here. Had he simply done what he did originally, and not opened his mouth, he probably could have made the original ban fly... but he did. He called for a ban on Muslims coming to the United States, was smacked down, and then paired it down a bit. The question is whether he still had that as his intent, but made moves as far as he could (also attempting to conceal his intent), to get something approaching his original statement.

How so? I don't see "intent" anywhere in the statute (212f) referenced:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.
​

 

[OakRiver]

How so? I don't see "intent" anywhere in the statute (212f) referenced:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.
​

That's funny, because intent wasn't anywhere in the law that Hilary fell foul of either

 

[Kutnupe14]

How so? I don't see "intent" anywhere in the statute (212f) referenced:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President of the United States broad authority to implement immigration restrictions by proclamation. The statute allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens or place restrictions on the entry of a class of aliens temporarily if he or she determines that the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.
​

I'm not seeing how this doesn't exactly prove my point. "If he or she determines...." So if he hasn't or can't make such a determination, then his power to suspend entry is voided.

 

[Fargo]

I'm not seeing how this doesn't exactly prove my point. "If he or she determines...." So if he hasn't or can't make such a determination, then his power to suspend entry is voided.

The power and grounds for such a determination appear to be at the sole discretion of the executive. Unless you have a mind reader, it is almost always a non-justiciable question.