world

U.S. Supreme Court OKs partial implementation of Trump's travel ban

90 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

90 Comments
Login to comment

It seems as if SCOTUS is punting to October so it can decline to address the issue of Trump's intent. As the article says, by the time SCOTUS reconvenes, the ban will have run its course. SCOTUS itself said as much regarding the ban running its course. This means we may never get an answer to the questions many of us have been arguing about: whether Trump's overall actions were unconstitutional.

By the way, this leaker should be ferreted out!

The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

What a disgrace! Lol.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

So it is temporary to allow the Administration to revise their procedures. Okay, but then what has the Administration been doing since January? Shouldn't they have already completed that 90-day "review"? Thus, there should no longer be any need for this temporary halt, unless of course the "halt" argument was a pretext all along.

Trump hits a single and still claim it’s a home run.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Ban Saudi Arabia and I'll believe you.

25 ( +26 / -1 )

Good to hear. I hope a few more countries are added to the list, personally

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

It seems as if SCOTUS is punting to October so it can decline to address the issue of Trump's intent.

One thing I like about you, you have tenacity. Last night you were so confident that the SCOTUS was going to rule against the president and well as in most liberal fashion when it comes to predictions, they are so off since 2010 and that beat goes on....

As the article says, by the time SCOTUS reconvenes, the ban will have run its course. SCOTUS itself said as much regarding the ban running its course.

LOL! Want to go for a second shot. I pretty much guarantee you if the Supreme Court rules NOW in Trump's favor on the legality and constitutionality of the law, the courts will side with Trump. The SCOTUS are not the lower courts don't rule as to what or how they feel ethically about an issue, they just rule on how the law is interpreted and on those points alone, Trump will win. But you can (sigh) try again prepare yourself eating another slice of crow

This means we may never get an answer to the questions many of us have been arguing about: whether Trump's overall actions were unconstitutional.

I think it's very safe to assume it's constitutional.

Trump hits a single and still claim it’s a home run.

Yup!

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

Trump will win

But why only 120 days? What happens after that? ISIS can wait 120 days. If it was 120 moths then I would say it's a win. Then we are still waiting for the wall.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

has family in law enforcement and 30 years experience in the media trying to predict what SCOTUS will do, have at it.

Exactly and I personally felt that the ruling was going to go Trump's way, but it's always better to be optimistically cautious about these things, but once again, the liberals lose big.

Thank God for the SCOTUS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I said before that the court would rule in Trump's favor. And they did, what's more, the ruling was unanimous. The president has authority over immigration, and always has. Trump is far from the first president to enact travel bans, or changes in immigration policy by executive order.

But why only 120 days? What happens after that? ISIS can wait 120 days.

They certainly can. But the ban was more symbolic than realistic. ISIS needn't send their fighters disguised as refugees (which would be the easiest way to get them into America). It would be more troublesome, but they could send them to Mexico and have them walk into America. And as Canada put out a welcome to the refugees denied entry by America, they can walk into America from there too.

The travel bans are a lot of meaningless nonsense, the only way to stop the problem is at it's source. And more than likely, any meaningful action in the middle east would not happen unless Trump is reelected. And with the democrats focused only on "Russiagate", which no-one really cares about, and no message at all on policy, which people do care about, Trump is more likely than not to be reelected.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

My impression of losing big was the entire EO being allowed to precede. I guess in the unicornverse losing big means only a partial stay of the injunction.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

No response to being demonstrably incorrect about my lack of prediction? I'm not holding my breath for one.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Canada put out a welcome to the refugees denied entry by America, they can walk into America from there too.

Then how come Trump is not getting busy building walls on both borders? We need a Canadian wall too (that Canada will pay for). Trump wants to build a wall on Mexico and not Canada? It proves he is racist since Canada is just as dangerous as Mexico since they can walk into America from there too.

And with the democrats focused only on "Russiagate"

Well, Republicans wanted an investigation on whether Obama was born in Kenya and if Hillary was running a pediphile ring in a pizza joint so what comes around....

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I fail to see how Trump can lose previous Governments especially Democrat Presidents have used bans without any problems.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I really don't know what to think. The ban is in place, but it looks like you can get around it pretty easily.

ISIS needn't send their fighters disguised as refugees (which would be the easiest way to get them into America).

Wouldn't a plane ticket be easier than a 2-year, heavily investigated and non-guaranteed refugee situation?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Democrat Presidents have used bans without any problems.

Like what?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Fantastic win for security and common sense.

Lots of very angry liberals here today who should hope their country had the backbone for a similar ban.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

I think the the more worrying development from all this is Neil Gorsuch's rulings on the other cases. He has taken an extreme conservative position on all the rulings with extremely weak and nonsensical justification, indicating that his confirmation interrogation was not only a farce, but also a lie. This man may be one of the most dangerous people in America right now and the Dems let him slip through

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Lots of very angry liberals here today

But how can you still be happy since it runs out after 120 days. ISIS can wait 120 days longer. Also......

but they could send them to Mexico and have them walk into America. And as Canada put out a welcome to the refugees denied entry by America, they can walk into America from there too.

Trump needs to take this further as follows:

(1) Make the ban permanent instead of 120 days (ISIS can wait, believe me)

(2) Need to build a complete wall 2000 miles x 50 ft high

(2) Need to do the same for Canada since they can walk into America from there too

It will be back to square one 120 days later. Trump is playing his followers as fools.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

nishikat - Did anyone ever say it was going to keep out 100% of the jihadis? No, and you know that. But its a great start that hurts no one and will no doubt save lives.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Proof that the U.S.A. is not Europe. Thank you President Trump for protecting the citizens of America and letting the world know we do have a constitution.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

It will be back to square one 120 days later. Trump is playing his followers as fools.

At least he does what he says he is going to do.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Did anyone ever say it was going to keep out 100% of the jihadis?

It won't even by .01% with a 120 day ban. And don't forget the 9/11 terrorists came from which country? Are they on the ban list? No! And these Saudi nationals caused trillions of dollars worth of damage to the US.

After 120 days and back to square one and the ISIS will resume their attack on the US. Bye Bye Empire State Building. Nothing will change. The ban should be 120 months (at least). Also, what to do about Canada since they can walk into America from there too

3 ( +7 / -4 )

My impression of losing big was the entire EO being allowed to precede. I guess in the unicornverse losing big means only a partial stay of the injunction.

Which will ultimately get a full clean bill of passing, but as I have constantly and consistently have been saying since 2010 Democrats and liberals are horrible when it comes to predictions and I have now come to the realization that they don't care to lose or being horribly wrong.

Hopefully one day, liberals will find their way out of the wilderness and win something or at least stand for something instead of whining.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

and win something

ISIS has already won if you count 120 days forward.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.

Overall, a fair result until the case is actually heard.

SCOTUS' decision supports those who filed the suit.

The ruling basically sustained the lower courts stay of the ban for those with standing and allowed the ban for those without standing. They put off the larger issue of whether this was an unconstitutional Muslim ban.

The ruling absolutely is not a "clear win" for Trump since his ban still has huge holes in it allowing the majority of people targeted by the ban into the U.S.

Issues to be addressed in October: (1) timing, (2) whether the ban was aimed Muslims, (3) impact of Trump's provocative statements, and (4) the court's authority to restrain the president.

It should be interesting.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

[to protect the nation from terrorist activities" committed by citizens of the six countries. All six have been designated as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.]

[Trump's ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen]

The hijackers of 9/11 who actually killed Americans on American soil were fifteen Saudis, two UAEs, one Lebanese and one Egyptian.

Funny... None of those countries seem to be on the list any where... How exactly are we protecting Americans again?

And Saudis still continue to teach and fund terrorism... Real world wide terrorism- Daesh.

Although I do not agree to a ban that willy nilly bans muslims in general, if you are not banning those who truly are/supports terrorism to traveling to the US, why bother even doing it?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Overall, a fair result until the case is actually heard.

I agree.

SCOTUS' decision supports those who filed the suit.

But all the lower circuit courts were nothing but a circus.

The ruling basically sustained the lower courts stay of the ban for those with standing and allowed the ban for those without standing. They put off the larger issue of whether this was an unconstitutional Muslim ban.

More than likely the ruling should result in the president does have the authority given to him under the Constitution that he has the right to ban certain groups of people if he feels that these countries engage in acts of terrorism has the full discretion to block people from entering the country for a duration that the president sees fit.

The ruling absolutely is not a "clear win" for Trump since his ban still has huge holes in it allowing the majority of people targeted by the ban into the U.S.

Wanna bet? You know the left are horrible when it comes to predictions.

Issues to be addressed in October: (1) timing, (2) whether the ban was aimed Muslims, (3) impact of Trump's provocative statements, and (4) the court's authority to restrain the president.

Overall, it really will boil down to, did the president have the constitutional right to ban people from countries that he felt were a threat to the nation, because the Supreme will also take into consideration if what Trump was doing unconditional and racist, why aren't people from Turkey or Indonesia denied, that will is something the left constantly skips over.

On that alone the Supreme Court could never say the ban is racist, that would be a dead argument to make, not to mention a losing one.

It should be interesting.

Oh, indeed.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Very happy with the ruling. Even all the liberal leaning judges proved that the lower courts were not focusing on the law but their personal feelings or activism.

6-3 vote with the 3 dissenting because they wanted the entire ban upheld not just part of it. That is pretty much the best that could you have been hoped for. People with ties to the USA can still come that is fair too and further proof that it isn't and never was based on religion, but national security.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia Bin Laden the mastermind of the attack came from Saudi but Saudi is not on the list of banned countries, why?

Donald Trump's rhetoric and policies have been solely focused on 'radical Islamic terrorism'.

Most of the designated terrorist groups in the US are right-wing extremists, not Muslim, according to a new report.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/terrorism-right-wing-america-muslims-islam-white-supremacists-study-a7805831.html

How will a travel ban prevent the right-wing extremists. Guns are not banned, not even for a single day, but gunshot will kill more Americans in a single year that the total of Islamic terrorists attacks.

The possibility of an American winning the lottery jackpot is higher the possibility of being killed by an Islamic terrorist.

http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@bass4funkToday 11:35 am JST

First, your side "won" this round, so I guess I should have a bit of "sportsmanship" and congratulate you. If your side wins into October, I'll try to remember to congratulate you again - I just hope you'll be happy with the choice that was made in the long run, because if even you aren't happy, we sure as heck won't be.

But all the lower circuit courts were nothing but a circus.

Hey, hey, hey. Let's not say the courts that disagree with you are a "circus". On the merits, the lower circuit courts actually made a more nuanced evaluation of the facts and law.

Part of how the Supreme Court got this solution is by being willfully blind and taking a formal rather than substantive approach to evaluating Trump's subjective aspect.

From CNN: "The 16 pages did not include any citations to President Trump's campaign rhetoric," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "And the Supreme Court seems reluctant to get into the business of that, which is why I always thought the President had the best chance of winning at the Supreme Court."

In short, the Supreme Court is saying that as long as Trump scribbles National Security on the piece of paper, they will wilfully shut their eyes on any other indications on what he's really thinking. You tell me if that's what a court is supposed to do.

More than likely the ruling should result in the president does have the authority given to him under the Constitution that he has the right to ban certain groups of people if he feels that these countries engage in acts of terrorism has the full discretion to block people from entering the country for a duration that the president sees fit.

In other words, you want to give the President carte blanche based on a formal, simplistic reading of the provision?

why aren't people from Turkey or Indonesia denied, that will is something the left constantly skips over.

While I agree that should help his case somewhat, I don't think this should be considered some clear cut evidence he doesn't have racist motives. One doesn't need to put up a total ban to be a racist or to have racial motives in putting up the ban.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ISIS has already won if you count 120 days forward.

nishikat - I really have the feeling you have no idea what the travel ban entails. You DO realize US immigration and security services will take another 120 days to properly vet (that means investigate) travellers from those affected countries and not simply sit on their hands? You DO realize this will undoubtably better screen incoming travellers?

You understand that, right?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The case should have been dismissed outright by the court because the States have no standing in the area of immigration - a clearly recognized federal responsibility. Whether or not a person has a relationship with a person or entity is irrelevant and isn't a reasonable standard for granting entry into the country. Especially when it is impossible to get trusted info about individuals from their home governments.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The way I interpret the current law is that you can only read the law itself not unilaterally determine motive and intent.

I assume this bonafied tie to US thing will be looked at further in October as it is pretty unclear. I agree with the 3 justices that it made more sense to allow the entire ban for now.

Now someone has to decide if mother in law and sister in law and cousin and grandma and adopted relatives count as close enough ties or not.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Bodes well for the future because if the court felt there actually was religious animus they couldn't have allowed any of it to go into effect. Same for the campaign statements they didn't matter for today but let's see if they do in October.

Hopefully by then all the vetting procedures in place make the need for this whole idea to be obsolete. But probably will still be countries without governments that can't vet their part so might have to be more permanent solution for them.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

 I just hope you'll be happy with the choice that was made in the long run, because if even you aren't happy, we sure as heck won't be.

For me, it's bigger because the Supreme Court went by the law and the constitution and if Trump overstepped his authority as POTUS and they sided that Trump was in the right and I pretty much can guarantee that later this year, the ruling will equally be in Trump's favor. Again, if his decision was based on race and or religion solely, then Indonesians and Turkish people would equally be denied as well as the Muslim countries in the Caucuses. So that argument is pretty much DOA.

Hey, hey, hey. Let's not say the courts that disagree with you are a "circus". On the merits, the lower circuit courts actually made a more nuanced evaluation of the facts and law.

Sorry, to have some idiotic liberal judge in Hawaii of all places intervene and block a sitting president from exercising his constitutional authority, I'm glad the Supreme Court put this nutjobs back in their place. Again, these lame judges were injecting emotional arguments to make their case and the Supreme Court doesn't do that.

Part of how the Supreme Court got this solution is by being willfully blind and taking a formal rather than substantive approach to evaluating Trump's subjective aspect.

Uh-huh....riiiiight....lol

From CNN: "The 16 pages did not include any citations to President Trump's campaign rhetoric," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Toobin is not a sitting Supreme Court justice. By the way, didn't CNN have retract a story and 3 Journalists had to quit?

"And the Supreme Court seems reluctant to get into the business of that, which is why I always thought the President had the best chance of winning at the Supreme Court."

Oh, I doubt the Supreme Court judges are feel reluctant or intimidated by anyone, but now it seems the left thinks that SCOTUS just don't have a clues about how the law works.

In short, the Supreme Court is saying that as long as Trump scribbles National Security on the piece of paper, they will wilfully shut their eyes on any other indications on what he's really thinking. You tell me if that's what a court is supposed to do.

So basically when the Supreme Court wins on any liberal issue you guys cheer them, praise them, if it's a conservative point, you guys cry foul and curse the judges. I praise the court for bringing clarity to this so deeply misunderstood issue that was confusing the left constantly.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The way I interpret the current law is that you can only read the law itself not unilaterally determine motive and intent.

Confusing statement and assertion. What do you mean by the "law" itself?

Judges determine what the law is every day. How the "law" is determined is somewhat complex, but context is almost always key and necessary, i.e., motive and intent.

@Black Bodes well for the future because if the court felt there actually was religious animus they couldn't have allowed any of it to go into effect.

@Bass I praise the court for bringing clarity to this so deeply misunderstood issue that was confusing the left constantly.

Just outright guessing and more GoP "feelings". You guys are regular fortune tellers and avoider's of facts.

SCOTUS only considered the law around stays saying that granting stays required an equitable analysis, and an equitable analysis required an analysis of the harm to the two parties involved in the suit.

Therefore, a party must be identified for a stay. So, the stay only applied to identified parties. Full stop.

Nothing on religious tests or Trump's lies. No Trump vindication or clarity.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

if people from those countries can prove they have legitimate ties to being in the US then the ban isnt going to apply. It has been shown that many other countries terrorist have been citizens or permanent residents of those countries, they travel to the middle east to get training and come back to commit their attacks. How is Trumps travel ban going to stop these people. SCOTUS has just stated these people wont be effected and its impossible for US intelligence agencies to keep track of every bodies movements. Trumps muslim ban has more holes than a sieve.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The law itself as related to the Executive order. No where in there did it say anything about religion and no where in there were the campaign statements of the President. Yet the liberal courts injected how they felt about those two issues into their decision. That is why the Supreme Court overruled them and allowed the ban to go into effect. One more vote and the ENTIRE ban would have been able to go into effect until October. But I feel its fair to allow those people with ties to still enter as long as people cant create ties to get around the EO. (Which has addressed in the SC decision already)

Just outright guessing and more GoP "feelings". You guys are regular fortune tellers and avoider's of facts.

Guessing? no I read the executive order and the law. Feelings? Like the ones the liberal judges allowed to cloud their supposed legal decisions? Fortune teller? yes, I said the ban would be upheld and also that Trump would win the Presidency even when it was 95% sure Clinton would win. Avoider of fact? only fact related to this is that all 9 judges said the travel ban can go into effect as it relates to refugees and people with no ties. The fact is, they wont be coming.

Thats a huge win and shows religion has nothing to do with it, its national security due to lack of vetting capability in those countries.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No where in there did it say anything about religion 

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims ... can figure out what the hell is going on,” he said"

You understand that, right?

120 days is the blink of an eye in a terrorist's timeline. 120 days? Are you joking?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SCOTUS has not taken arguments on this case, so any speculation on whether Trump's rhetoric against Muslims will affect their ruling is just that, speculation.

Trump won and so did us libertards. Of course, this could all change in October when SCOTUS takes arguments.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@bass4funkToday 01:51 pm JST

For me, it's bigger because the Supreme Court went by the law and the constitution

Yes, I think I still remember your basic view on the subject. You wanted the law to read without the modern day restrictions of proportionality and rationality. You could be right the Supreme Court in October would rule your way. I'm just not sure if in the long run, when the law is applied without proportionality or rationality in an issue that would be adverse to you, you might not regret today's happenings, that's all.

Again, if his decision was based on race and or religion solely, then Indonesians and Turkish people would equally be denied as well as the Muslim countries in the Caucuses. So that argument is pretty much DOA.

You can't absolve him of motives based solely on his ban not being 100%. He is following legal advice that tries to balance what he wants to do with how to at least make it look minimally legal.

Sorry, to have some idiotic liberal judge in Hawaii of all places intervene and block a sitting president from exercising his constitutional authority, I'm glad the Supreme Court put this nutjobs back in their place. Again, these lame judges were injecting emotional arguments to make their case and the Supreme Court doesn't do that.

The main difference between the State rulings and the Federal rulings, in terms of Fact, is that the State rulings used more circumstantial information (and the assessment of the subjective aspect is always on circumstantials because we can't read minds). The question had been brought to the "liberal judge" and he answered the question. The Supreme Court deliberately cut evidence out, apparently without explaining the decision, to avoid answering the question.

It's like a decision acquitting a murderer by deliberately omitting evidence about the presence of a weapon.

I can be "OK" (though I won't like it, it'll be legally acceptable) if the Supreme Court felt that. for example, the Presidency should be afforded more margin of discretion when making his national security determination (I don't think they can throw away the principles of proportionality or rationality in modern day jurisprudence, but they can certainly still work with margin of discretion). That's an issue of law, not fact, and there is certainly room for discussion re the degree of margin of discretion the Presidency should be allowed.

However, if you have to pretend certain information does not exist to get a ruling, you are knowingly writing a false ruling. That's my beef with the current interim ruling.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SCOTUS has not taken arguments on this case, so any speculation on whether Trump's rhetoric against Muslims will affect their ruling is just that, speculation.

Yes, on that you are right, but on your previous predictions you were wrong. So we can wait and see how this will evolve, but I have a very deep feeling that the ruling really won't change that much, if at all.

Trump won and so did us libertards.

Liberals won? Really? How so? You mean like Democrats constantly losing? Or by being the party with the longest record of wandering in the wilderness. Yes, you guys win hands down on that for sure.

Of course, this could all change in October when SCOTUS takes arguments.

Judges determine what the law is every day. How the "law" is determined is somewhat complex, but context is almost always key and necessary, i.e., motive and intent.

Give it up. From the looks of it, if the SC rules like they did today on this issue, the chances of them reversing it are very unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely.

Just outright guessing and more GoP "feelings". You guys are regular fortune tellers and avoider's of facts. 

Really, from the court ruling today, I would say, the facts are on Trump's side.

*SCOTUS only considered the law around stays saying that granting stays required an equitable analysis, and an equitable analysis required an analysis of the harm to the two parties involved in the suit.*

Here is the kicker, in order for the Dems to have a sliver of a chance, they have to prove that the ban is racist towards Muslim, that is their biggest argument and all the Judges have to say based on the evidence out of the 6 nations that are now blocked, how many other Muslim nations are allowed to come in and if those countries that are not on the list allowed to come in your argument is shot to ****. Lol

Kind of like saying, someone accuses you of hating hamburgers, you just don't want to eat the ones with onions and mayo, but the bacon and cheesy ones.....uhmmm....

Nothing on religious tests or Trump's lies. No Trump vindication or clarity.

No vindication? Then Trump wouldn't be preparing to reinstate his ban. You guys crack me up! It's a clear and flawless vindication. Good on Trump.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Although Trump will claim a "total victory", this modified decision does not support that notion. However, I continue to wonder why SCOTUS even bothered to make a partial ruling on this ban. If the purpose of the ban was a 90 day stay while Trump's administration came up with some great, "extreme vetting" plan, those 90 days have long since passed. This ruling is a moot point.  

Where is that great "extreme vetting" plan that Trump planned? All talk, no action (thank goodness!).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Seems a lot of people would be let through - a lot of people would have relatives or job/school reasons for going to the US

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, on that you are right, but on your previous predictions you were wrong

Oh, you mean the predictions I did not make? See my 7:55 post.

As usual, denying facts.

Viking: I don't think it's worth our time lending what we have learned to the conversation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The 90-day ban is necessary to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the countries, the administration says. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, 

Why haven't they completed the review yet? Guess it wasn't that important after all?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Why haven't they completed the review yet? Guess it wasn't that important after all?

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

Because Obama's Hawaii buddy also blocked their ability to even do the vetting review. It wasnt until 2 weeks ago that they were allowed to start it.

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

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Viking: I don't think it's worth our time lending what we have learned to the conversation.

Swift, I agree. They are trying to read a court's opinion and misconstruing the reasoning and holding to claim victory where one doesn't exist. I am just astounded at the level of disregard of facts, but that appears to be the world we live in now. The lowest common denominator.

The ruling is very simple, narrow (limited to addressing the stay of the ban (or a stay on the preliminary injunction of the ban)) and in now way addresses the broader constitutional questions of the ban.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As usual, denying facts.

Not really. You've been going on for a while that the Supreme Courts would rule against the travel ban and well, it didn't happen.

Keep trying you guys, one day the left will get some meaningful message out that will get people's attention.

Although Trump will claim a "total victory", this modified decision does not support that notion.

Liberals keep saying that, for the life of me, why?? The lib circuit court judges got shot dead center.

However, I continue to wonder why SCOTUS even bothered to make a partial ruling on this ban. If the purpose of the ban was a 90 day stay while Trump's administration came up with some great, "extreme vetting" plan, those 90 days have long since passed. This ruling is a moot point.  

Dont worry, once the judges rule that this ban is constitutional and meets all the necessary requirements, I would expect Dems to dig and try desperately to find something else to attack Trump with.

Good luck!

Where is that great "extreme vetting" plan that Trump planned? All talk, no action (thank goodness!).

It'll probably come, give it time.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” 

So what does this mean to me? Specifically the part that says they implicitly conclude that the government is likely to succeed on the merits and that the judgments will be reversed. Im asking a serious question, not a snarky one, so educate me if you feel inclined to. This seems like much more than just addressing the previous stay on the ban.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So what does this mean to me? Specifically the part that says they implicitly conclude that the government is likely to succeed on the merits and that the judgments will be reversed.

You are quoting Thomas' minority opinion.

The "they" you are speaking about are three minority justices who are not in the majority opinion. The real holding of the Court is before Thomas' minority opinion. That is why I am saying there is too much guessing and cherry picking and not enough understanding of the ruling. Basically, a disregard of the facts to come to a preformed conclusion.

In brief, the court said: Granting equitable relief (i.e., preliminary injunction against the ban) requires identified parties in order to understand the balance of the harms to both parties in granting or denying the equitable relief. So, the preliminary injunction against the ban should only apply to identified parties.

Also note the following important language in the holding:

"we fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90-day life of [the executive order]."

This is an implied threat by the Court basically saying that the Court will not allow a permanent ban.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Because Obama's Hawaii buddy...

More proof that Trump supporters are racist

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is an implied threat by the Court basically saying that the Court will not allow a permanent ban.

I dont think anyone wants a permanent ban, well at least I dont. I want extreme vetting put into place in collaboration with these 6 countries so that we can allow the right people in who are the least likely to harm us.

As far as everything else, ok lets wait and see in October I guess. The minority opinion said it agreed with the Court's implicit conclusion. So I took that to mean that they feel the same was as the majority feels, that the case will likely be reversed based on the merits.

That is why they could let it go into effect now, because I thought if based on the merits it is Unconstitutional or racist or against religion, they couldnt. But ok, I will leave it to someone smarter than me to figure out what it means. All I know is that the Trump administration has bought themselves until October to find a way to protect us with vetting programs.

More proof that Trump supporters are racist

Huh? You know, the judge who went to law school with Obama? The one who ruled against Trump the day after having dinner with Obama? You know, Obama's friend. Where would the racism be in that?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

 You've been going on for a while that the Supreme Courts would rule against the travel ban and well, it didn't happen.

Put your money where your mouth is and cute and paste my comments to this effect.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

*cut

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because Obama's Hawaii buddy...

Are you saying this because Obama nominated him or because the were in the same class at Harvard Law?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Are you saying this because Obama nominated him or because the were in the same class at Harvard Law?

Both, they have enough of a personal relationship where he should have recused himself. Plus, I saw pics of them at dinner supposedly the night before he made his decision in the case. Obama was confirmed to be in Hawaii at that time so its more likely than not that they discussed the case.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Viking:

Nice case summary.

*"we fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90-day life of [the executive order]."*

My instincts tell me this is SCOTUS broadcasting that it does not want to decide the case on the merits because it cdoes not want to deal with looking at a president's intent.

As I have said before, this situation is rare because the intent of Trump has been/is painfully obvious. I'm not certain, but SCOTUS may not believe it can ignore the intent.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Huh? You know

Yes, I sure do know. The south (where Sessions is from) hated the idea of Hawaii becoming the 50th state back in '59 because there were not enough white people on that island. But the north supported Hawaii becoming part of the US. Check history and check Sessions racist comment about Hawaii as well as the comment of Obama's Hawaii buddy

Trump supporters are racist.

Plus, I saw pics of them at dinner

Really? The same source that reported about Hillary's pedophile ring at the pizza joint?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Black:

That is a serious accusation to level. If I understand you correctly, you believe that a liberal federal judge and former president would conspire to commit a felony to enjoin Trump's travel ban. That seems plausible to you? (Yet you don't believe Trump would pressure Comey to drop an investigation?)

More later. Time for chow.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In brief, the court said: Granting equitable relief (i.e., preliminary injunction against the ban) requires identified parties in order to understand the balance of the harms to both parties in granting or denying the equitable relief. So, the preliminary injunction against the ban should only apply to identified parties.

You are right, there's no disputing that statement, however, neither of us can predict what the overall outcome will be just like when every liberal was coming up with their ideas or interpretations that this ruling would NOT go in Trump's favor and it did. So we can speculate all day, but in the end, it's not up to us to decide on this ruling, but as with this ruling, I believe the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling permanently, but that's my personal opinion.

This is an implied threat by the Court basically saying that the Court will not allow a permanent ban.

We shall see. I don't know how many times libs were so wrong about the law.

As I have said before, this situation is rare because the intent of Trump has been/is painfully obvious. I'm not certain, but SCOTUS may not believe it can ignore the intent.

And what's that? That's it's racist, but other Muslim countries like Turkey and Muslims from Indonesia are allowed in? As as the intent, I think THEY know the intent, as for the liberals.....that's an entirely different story.....

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@Bass:

Where is that cut and paste job of my posts?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And what's that?

Discrimination based on religion. Discrimination based on religion does not require banning people from every country that is a majority religion you are discriminating against; it requires treating a particular religion in a negative way when you don't treat other religions in that negative way.

I know you won't accept these facts just like you won't accept the fact that I never predicted what SCOTUS would rule. Apprently, facts don't matter where you are, which is in the unicornverse.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

We shall see. I don't know how many times libs were so wrong about the law.

That's not a ban. It's just Trump playing his racist game and his followers following him like he's a cult leader who can do no wrong. A permanent Muslim ban is not a ban.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In regards to Obama and Watson being too chummy, I know where this nonsense started. The Independent Journal Review put it out in a post that was later retracted, but not before it was picked up by other conservative outlets.

The restaurant where Obama had dinner was close to the federal courthouse. Each class at Harvard Law has over 500 students. Not to mention Obama and Gorsuch were in the same year at Harvard Law. None of this is sufficient to demonstrate that Obama and Watson conspired to enjoin Trump's travel ban.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Discrimination based on religion.

Really, so what are Turkish and Indonesian people? UAE, Egypt, Moroccan, Jordan all are not on the ban and all are Muslim nations, these countries do practice Islam, right?

Discrimination based on religion does not require banning people from every country that is a majority religion you are discriminating against; it requires treating a particular religion in a negative way when you don't treat other religions in that negative way.

Now I know you don't believe what you just said. Lol

I know you won't accept these facts just like you won't accept the fact that I never predicted what SCOTUS would rule. Apprently, facts don't matter where you are, which is in the unicornverse.

No, I love and respect facts, but that's not what we are dealing with, you can't have it both ways, I just listed a bunch of Muslim countries that are not included in the ban, if Trump truly believed all Muslims are bad and he himself is suffering from Islamophobia he would have made a complete ban on any and every Muslim nation, he didn't do that, so to make the ludicrous and outrageous statement that this ruling is discriminatory is laughable. But I know the Dems will try to find some loophole to get this guy. Smh.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Really, so what are Turkish and Indonesian people? UAE, Egypt, Moroccan, Jordan all are not on the ban and all are Muslim nations, these countries do practice Islam, right?

He would if he could. In fact he wanted to take it further but his advisors said it was legally not possible. His quote is proof:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims ... can figure out what the hell is going on,” he said"

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Dont worry, once the judges rule that this ban is constitutional

It seems to me that someone with extensive experience in the media would know that the Supreme Court is composed of justices, not judges.

The lib circuit court judges got shot dead center.

Nope. If this were even half accurate, the entire ban would have been allowed to move forward. Did that happen? Also, as Viking pointed out, SCOTUS ruled on the preliminary injunction not the substance of the ban.

Too bad you don't claim to have any relatives that are lawyers or you may just understand what SCOTUS did.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Discrimination based on religion

It's as simple as that. It's as horrifying as that.

This is not America. And those who applaud the ban would have had their counterparts in those who supported internment for US citizens during the Pacific war.

America's isolation and decline is pitiful to behold. One can only hope the people will rise up and depose the corrupt regime.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the Supreme Court is saying that as long as Trump scribbles National Security on the piece of paper, they will wilfully shut their eyes on any other indications on what he's really thinking. You tell me if that's what a court is supposed to do

It's a bit more nuanced than that isn't it? The court can certainly look for the true purpose of Trump's actions, but what was so unreasonable about the lower court decisions was the proposition that hateful rhetoric had to be decisive in concluding that Trump had violated the law. This is absurd.

The unfortunate reality is that hateful rhetoric will inevitably build against any groups which pose a real or imagined national security threat to America. The level of hate will probably correspond to the level of the threat. Some of the rhetoric might be over the top, racist and xenophobic, but the political accountability for making this decision correctly rests with the president. He is rightly given wide latitude by the courts because only he can be punished and replaced by the voters if miscalculates the threat.

For a different example, take the Chinese. Today there is some hate directed towards the Chinese for their military and commercial espionage. Chinese citizens are banned from visiting NASA if I'm not mistaken. The threat is obviously real and it's not unreasonable to imagine a future scenario where the entry of Chinese citizens could be temporarily banned. If we ever reach that point, don't you think the level of anti-Chinese rhetoric from politicians will be just as vitriolic as it is against Muslims today? Will this mean that a Chinese ban will also be unconstitutional? It's for the president to sift through what is being said, share his thought, and then try to make decisions that serve America's interests. The courts cannot do this and the constitution recognises this.

Finally, I don't mean to gloat but I correctly predicted this on Mar 16 when I wrote:

I read the entire ruling today simply out of interest, and I have to say that it does seem to be a judicial overreach in my opinion... ...this other [dissenting] judge is likely to be vindicated once this gets to the Supreme court.

The President clearly had the power to do what he did to aliens that had no other legal right to enter America. The lower courts clearly overstepped the mark. Even though oral arguments are set for October, I don't see what else remains to be discussed or considered.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Not read a single line or sentence how this travel ban will prevent terrorism?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The ruling is very simple, narrow (limited to addressing the stay of the ban (or a stay on the preliminary injunction of the ban)) and in now way addresses the broader constitutional questions of the ban.

That's very true, but lifting the stay also suggests that the supreme court does not accept the reasoning of the lower courts on some of the underlying constitutional issues.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

M3,

SCOTUS ruled on the injunction, nothing else. This does not suggest anything about reasoning beyond the injunction.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Not read a single line or sentence how this travel ban will prevent terrorism?

That is because it doesnt. In the three months since the injunction not one single terrorist attack.

But this isnt about protecting America, its about fulfilling a campaign promise.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Supreme Court will reconvene in 99 days. The ban will end in 92 days. I have a feeling that the case will be tossed a moot and that we'll never see a substantive ruling on the issues.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Crazy: "Trump hits a single and still claim it’s a home run."

Trump could hit a homerun and you'd call it out, lol

Oh my...

Judge Napolitano on President Trump's travel ban victory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOpmwRjeR2E&t=98s

Supreme Court Overturns Injunction, Reinstates Most of Trumps' Travel Ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqA7wbjO6wk

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It's a bit more nuanced than that isn't it?

The lower courts asked Trump's team for examples of how these countries have threatened us. All they could come up with was two Iraqis who were arrested and a Syrian who was brought over as a child. No examples of any threats could be given for the other countries. If we can ban them based on that, then it would seem that the national security tag can be used even when the government can't prove that a threat exists.

Additionally, the courts decided that they can still enter as long as they have a reason to enter (education, work, etc). So now it fells like we're banning Muslim housewives in Somalia who have no link to the US because of national security, but plenty of 18-34 year old men can create a reason to get in.

So this "ban" can be easily gotten around, but in the end the US still keeps the black eye on the world stage. What's the point?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Oh my...

TRUMP DEMANDS APOLOGY FROM OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS FOR RUSSIA INVESTIGATION  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY18Gfiy1Hk

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

 If we can ban them based on that, then it would seem that the national security tag can be used even when the government can't prove that a threat exists

I share your concern about abuse, but where do you draw the line and what soution do you propose to solve it? The executive will inevitably overreact and get things wrong at times. That is the nature of making snap decisions based on incomplete intelligence.

Should every executive decision be open to an unlimited number of court challenges? What happens if the courts strike down an executive decision made on security grounds and the country is later attacked? The fact that the voters can hold the President politically accountable for errors and misjudgements (but not the courts) suggests that the President should be given almost unlimited discretion on this issue. It is a matter for politics, not the law. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a President?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That is because it doesnt. In the three months since the injunction not one single terrorist attack. 

Oh, you think that the Supreme Court will reverse its position because of that? ROFL!

But this isnt about protecting America, its about fulfilling a campaign promise.

Its both. Kudos!

No examples of any threats could be given for the other countries.

The POTUS doesn't need an example, if he thinks there is an impending threat looming for example as in Europe, he has the right to issue a long term block until he deems the danger is nullified and that's where we are are at, the Supreme Court was showing the presidents constitutional right and these nutty lower court liberal judges tired to interfere with the presidents orders and now they learned a valuable lesson.

If we can ban them based on that, then it would seem that the national security tag can be used even when the government can't prove that a threat exists.

That would depend.

Additionally, the courts decided that they can still enter as long as they have a reason to enter (education, work, etc). So now it fells like we're banning Muslim housewives in Somalia who have no link to the US because of national security, but plenty of 18-34 year old men can create a reason to get in.

True, but they still would go through a vigorous vetting process and be monitored, so on that part, the only thing that would change is that this administration would be more proactive when it comes to the safety of the country.

So this "ban" can be easily gotten around, but in the end the US still keeps the black eye on the world stage. What's the point?

You can get around a lot of things, but this administration is taking a more heavier approach to national security, so it'll be a lot harder to get away, once implemented, these people can be more easily monitored, better monitoring, less chances of having a terror attack. It's all about prevention.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Oh, you think that the Supreme Court will reverse its position because of that?

Kinda hard to reverse a position when the SC never took a position on the constitutionality. Rofl

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I share your concern about abuse, but where do you draw the line and what soution do you propose to solve it?

Well at the very minumum, if the government claims an action needs be taken to counter a threat, they should be required to show that there's actually a threat. That's where I would start.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Why do some of you keep claiming that SCOTUS ruled in Trump's constitutional rights? SCOTUS ruled on the application of injunctions, nothing else.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Oh, you think that the Supreme Court will reverse its position because of that? ROFL!

Why do you assert something that isn't true even though you previously agreed with the scope of the ruling?

Here is what you said before.

You are right, there's no disputing that statement,

So you are just feeding more misinformation. The country is polarized because too much misinformation is being spread as fact.

Fact: There is no position to reverse on the ban itself because no position has been taken.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Fact: There is no position to reverse on the ban itself because no position has been taken.

But they can ultimately rule the the POTUS has the absolute right to not allow people into the country for the reasons of National Security if he deems the countries or the people of those countries possess a possible and credible threat to the homeland. On that alone, Trump might probably win.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@M3M3M3 June 27 09:22 pm JST

It's a bit more nuanced than that isn't it? The court can certainly look for the true purpose of Trump's actions, but what was so unreasonable about the lower court decisions was the proposition that hateful rhetoric had to be decisive in concluding that Trump had violated the law. This is absurd.

I disagree that it is "unreasonable". The establishment of mens rea (a.k.a. subjective aspect) has always been fluffier than the actus (objective aspect) because we can't read minds. So circumstantial evidence like what the defendant said elsewhere will always have substantial weight.

I am not against the idea that the Supreme Court can decide Trump was acting in good faith, but that was a horrible way of going about it. The court can certainly consider other factors. For example, Bush's point about the ban being not all encompassing is while not decisive, a point in Trump's favor. If there was some great information backing the decision, so regardless of Trump's biases, a "reasonable man" would have made the same choice, that might have been a point in his favor too. They can certainly say "on balance" the preponderance of the evidence says Trump was acting in good faith. 

From a procedural level, they might even have decided that the old rhetoric violated some obscure admissibility rule or another and thus should not have been considered part of the evidence.

But what they did, as far as the information coming out suggests, is that they just pretended that the rhetoric did not exist, without any explanation. As an analogy, if a defendant was convicted partially because he was caught with a big butcher knife in his possession, the appeal court might reasonably decide it doesn't mean that much because Defendant was a butcher by trade, and the lower court erred in not giving weight to that latter factor. But if it got the judgment by omitting all mention of the knife from the record, the implication is that with the butcher knife he should rightfully have been convicted, and that there was really no reasonable explanation for the knife.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

only fact related to this is that all 9 judges said the travel ban can go into effect as it relates to refugees and people with no ties. The fact is, they wont be coming. Thats a huge win and shows religion has nothing to do with it, its national security due to lack of vetting capability in those countries. how is that a huge win when it been shown that it wont effect the bulk of travelers from these countries, Trumps ban was a blanket ban, SCOTUS has watered it down so it doesn't discriminate against Muslims that already have ties in the US. Considering that most terrorist in other countries already have ties in the countries that they attack in & that Saudi Arabia isnt included at all in Trumps ban. Trumps 3 month ban wont stop terrorism within the US. Well funded groups like ISIS will just recruit and train Muslims already within the US, send them back when their training is complete. US intelligence services cant track every travelers movements

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As the article says, by the time SCOTUS reconvenes, the ban will have run its course. SCOTUS itself said as much regarding the ban running its course. This means we may never get an answer to the questions many of us have been arguing about: whether Trump's overall actions were unconstitutional.

I disagree, you will get your answers to that question when the SCOTUS reconvenes. Just because the ban will have run its course by then doesn't mean you still can't get an answer to that question if the ban was unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

only fact related to this is that all 9 judges said the travel ban can go into effect as it relates to refugees and people with no ties. The fact is, they wont be coming. Thats a huge win and shows religion has nothing to do with it, its national security due to lack of vetting capability in those countries. 

But by 6 to 3 the justices said that foreign nationals with some kind of established relationship to the country, and currently reside outside the country, are allowed entry during the suspension period. That is a dangerous precedent in which non-citizens are given the right to sue claiming residency rights that are not up to them to decide. I understand the goal is to get as many poor socialist immigrants as possible who will vote for Democrats, but what is more important is the national security interests of the nation as a whole. Temporary inconvenience and hatred of Trump on the part of Leftist judges is no reason to tie the hands of future presidents in the area of national security.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I understand the goal is to get as many poor socialist immigrants as possible who will vote for Democrats

And we understand that you are trying to be funny, but don't you find it weakens whatever serious point you were trying to make before you distracted yourself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're all forgetting the premise for this delay (rather than ban).

It is NOT a ban on Muslims.

It is however, a show of concern, over the Passenger Vetting process within those Countries. This is , and has always been the underlying issue that Trump has raised, but it's become contorted by some into a ban upon "Muslim".... sorry, wrong.

If those impacted Countries will provide the US with the necessary Passenger information that is being asked for, then they would not, be on the list.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites