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

[Libertarian01]

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.

I believe I erred and made a mistake in my logic, so I was wrong, but for a different reason.

Under several amendments to the Constitution there are limits to how the State can act due to bias. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorad Civil Rights Commission (the bakery case) the court considered "the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decision making body." In this case the court didn't decide AT ALL whether or not the baker could be forced to bake the cake, only that the CCRC used a bias against religion to make its determination. Ergo, it isn't "abuse" but "bias" that SCOTUS is taking into account.

So for consistency the majority of the court did not find any credible bias from the administration toward the immigration ban, but it did find bias against religion in Masterpiece.

Whether we like it or not the strength of the appearance of bias can determine the fate of the case.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

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.

Here's what making a determination looks like.

"I have determined that females with nipple piercings represent a significant threat to the safety of the United States. All females with nipple piercings are hereby prohibited from entering the United States after like, about, right now, and until such time that I have determined that they're actually kinda cool."

Now, if you don't like that determination, you should probably vote for someone else.

Making a determination is kinda easy. Where's the statute that says it has to be backed up with research?

 

[jamil]

The parts of the court who dissented because of "intent", just ruled because it's the result they wanted, not because of any other reason. Intent was an excuse.