U.S. top court to rule on Trump's travel ban, other cases as talk about Kennedy swirls

Too bad all those tweets made clear the unconstitutional intent, eh.

Soon we'll be hearing from the Trumpologists how the ban is needed to protect the US. Of course, this is demonstrably false.

Beirich warned that the U.S. would pay a high price for "wishing away" a movement that, according to the Government Accountability Office, was responsible for 73 percent of deadly terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 2001.

“The administration wants Americans to believe the only threat that exists to our democratic way of life comes from Islamist-inspired terror. But the facts and history of our country disprove that utterly. This is a dangerous approach.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-white-terrorism-apos-donald-153551372.html

A majority conservative court concerns me.

A majority liberal court also concerns me.

I prefer when they are balanced with some justices in the middle who listen to the arguments and decide based on what is best for the country, not necessarily what a strict interpretation of prior law would demand.

I'm against broad travel bans, but would insist on current immigration laws being enforced, if I were a justice.

It's not a ban. It's a further 3 to 4 month waiting period to more properly vet Muslim travelers.

In the current terrorist climate, it's the least we can ask of our governments

@clamenza

It's not a ban.

"People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!"

Donald Trump (June 5, 2017)

It's not a ban. It's a further 3 to 4 month waiting period to more properly vet Muslim travelers. 

Not what Donny says.

In the current terrorist climate, it's the least we can ask of our governments

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US in the last 4 months?

I prefer when they are balanced with some justices in the middle who listen to the arguments and decide based on what is best for the country, not necessarily what a strict interpretation of prior law would demand.

There are aspects of justices having a liberal or conservative track record on the bench. They sometimes surprise you with a decision that seems at odds with expectations. Kennedy is a prime example as expecting to be liberal, but he shows up on both sides of opinions. Thomas has also slipped in to a seemingly liberal opinion here and there. The most recent was a redistricting case.

The Court even seems to be setting up the law to be able to rule in a future Wisconsin redistricting case that has not yet been heard by the Court. I'm no Supreme Court scholar, but it is interesting that the Court seems to be establishing a precedent to be used in a future case. I'm very interested in that case because I hop it will address gerrymandering, which is designed to disenfranchise voters.

Regarding the travel ban, I think Trump will be disappointed again, and the ban will finally die. The only hope is that the Court does discuss the limits on power. Maybe even one of Thomas' long winded history lessons/opinions would be appropriate.

The ban's stated premise was a lie. The ban only called on a 90 day ban to establish vetting, but the WH has done nothing in that regard. It was meant to be temporary. The ban did not narrowly target a threat or define a threat to be addressed, even when courts gave DOJ attorneys the opportunity to describe the threat to be addressed. Trump and his supporters have spoken publicly that the actual purpose of the ban was to ban Muslims from entering the country. They were so bold as to even say that they designed the ban to allow them to ban Muslims. Trump's comments and those of his surrogates and attorneys made the ban dead on arrival. Trump is not protecting the U.S. by the ban. He is only playing to his base. If he were trying to protect the U.S., he would have addressed the threat through screening at U.S. Immigration and Customs, and he would have identified the threat. I'm all for protecting the U.S.' borders from criminals and terrorists, and I don't believe the hype created by Trump that there are huge risks of a known terrorist sneaking on an international flight. There is just too much scrutiny of passengers. The more likely terrorist ingress into the U.S. would be crossing the Canadian border into the U.S. or boating in.

The apologists will decry how America is being let down and made less safe by the obstructionist courts and lefties. The real problem is Trump ignoring the law he was sworn to uphold and feeding his base's nationalistic views with made up threats.

It's not a ban. It's a further 3 to 4 month waiting period to more properly vet Muslim travelers.

It is supposed to be a temporary ban to allow vetting procedures to be established, but the WH has not even considered the procedures.

People are going to lose their minds (again) when the travel ban is found constitutional. In my opinion, the Supreme Court will not want to set the precedent of taking away powers that belong to the President under the Constitution.

the Supreme Court will not want to set the precedent of taking away powers that belong to the President under the Constitution.

You are correct. Enough said.

the Supreme Court will not want to set the precedent of taking away powers that belong to the President under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will force the President to follow the constitution. The public hearing will be good to watch in order to see the DOJ attorneys get grilled with questions that they have no answers for.

But the President has that power under the Constitution. Otherwise why all the talk about Trump personally? None of the court decisions I read said that the position of President doesnt not have this power.

They are actually trying to say every President BUT Trump has this power only because of things he previously said that call into question his motives or intent. That's not gonna work at the Supreme Court level, I highly doubt they will set that precedent that powers depends on who is in the position. Cant wait to see what the answer is an what is the justification for it.

The Supreme Court will force the President to follow the constitution. 

I find it hard to believe that States even have standing to sue the US government to prevent the Trump administration from carrying out its lawful responsibilities. The reasons for the 6 country temporary ban are irrelevant to the question of whether or not Trumps executive order is lawful - which like Obama's it plainly is.

But in this day and age when the US Constitution is a mere bit player in the struggle between the two major political parties, I would somehow not be shocked by a Supreme Court decision that essentially erases the US border. Courts making nonsensical decisions such as this may turn out to be are what caused a man like Trump to be elected in the first place.

 I highly doubt they will set that precedent that powers depends on who is in the position.

Wrong, you are misconstruing the cases to say the courts are attacking Trump himself.

The courts have ruled that Trump must exercise his powers in a constitutional manner, and based on the facts, he hasn't acted in a constitutional manner.

The courts are not as partisan as American politics (and these comments) have become. Judges are always afraid of being overturned on appeal, so they are typically very careful in their decisions.

The courts haven't been saying every president but Trump has these powers. The courts have been saying that every president has these powers, but no president can exercise the powers in an unconstitutional manner. Whether the powers are being exercised in an unconstitutional manner has been affected by Trump not keeping his trap shut. (This is where the personal talk about Trump comes in.)

I'll hold off until the ruling, I think libs are completely and hopelessly wrong about the ban and the purpose of it, but that's typical irrational lib think for you.

Ill accept the ruling either way. If the SCOTUS rule on not to reinstate, then so be it. If they rule to uphold it, that would be the best thing for the country, but I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I won't speculate.

Plastic monkey - yes a 120 day ban to vet. You make it sound like no more Muslims will be allowed in forever and ever amen.

Takeda- zero, thanks to a more stringent immigration policy than Europe, good intelligence and no doubt a little luck.

do you suggest the US now open the borders because nothing has happened in 4 months?

Really?

Why are American court appointments so political? Why can't they just elevate judges to the supreme court based on merit? Why does everything in America have to be so political?

Agree, everything seems to be political. We need to fill all positions with OUR people. Seems kinda paranoid.

Why are American court appointments so political? Why can't they just elevate judges to the supreme court based on merit? Why does everything in America have to be so political?

Yeah. Maybe one day the US will get its act together and be as politically united as the UK

Why? Because you can no longer trust judges to put aside politics and rule on the law. Some partisan judges want to rule based on what they think is right, how they feel, or what they think the law SHOULD be.

For example the law (according to Alan Dershowitz) says the President can fire the FBI Director, its a power under the constitution. He can also direct the FBI to start or stop any investigation that he wants. He can also pardon anyone he wants, including people who might implicate him. He can also ban non-citizens from the USA with little justification beyond national security.

But judges feel these things arent right and lots of people agree with that, mostly due to political leanings. So they tend to try to add motive or intent into those situations to come up with a different outcome that feels right and just. But judicial branch is not there to create law, just to rule on what exists. So if the law isnt right, change it through legislative branch, not a judge's bench.

Why are American court appointments so political? Why can't they just elevate judges to the supreme court based on merit? Why does everything in America have to be so political?

As if the rest of the world isn't political. Jeeez! Come on now......

As if the rest of the world isn't political. Jeeez! Come on now......

The usual 'Whataboutism" reply. Why not throw a Hilary in there too eh? Allow me to help you. The rest of the world isn't. SOME of the world is (i.e. Switzerland & Japan). The problem is you end up with judges who are skilled politicians but not necessarily skilled at being Judges. A politician needs funding, and funding creates the potential for influence in the courts. The system does have some advantages of course, that's the bit I'm sure you'll focus on.

So there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA but the numbers in the EU are less than 10% of those figures.

Ill take 110 million illegal Mexicans who want to support their families over the 25000 Radical Islamic Jihadis in England alone.

I see. So its all just geography? They don't swim across the Channel like they do in England eh

There is a train and road tunnel under the channel between France and England. Geography has a lot to do with it.

See my 9:04 post for why the national security angle is nonsense.

See my 12:04 post for why it is within Trump's presidential powers to ban travel, but why Trump's ban is unconstitutional. Hint: Constitustional powers must be used in a constitutional manner, which excludes basing those actions on religious animus.

Despite that it is easiest to assume it's liberal judges out to get Trump, that is not what is happening. Judges with life tenure are applying their expertise to the issues.

Here is a gen from one of our resident Trumpologists:

 if you brought that kind of case to a courtroom and tried to file a lawsuit 

The court is an authority here, but just a couple posts down:

The courts can say whatever they want, but do they know what the man is thinking or were they there to witness what occurred?

The court isn't an authority. What this poster clearly doesn't understand is how courts work. The received evidence, much of which is eyewitness testimony that tells the court what a person has done or was thinking, and then rule according to the evidence.

I'm excited for the SCOTUS decision regarding the travel ban so we can all know whether Trump was exercising his constitutional power in a constitutional manner.

How was the 25,000 number arrived at? Did the jihadis self-report?

Not needing a travel ban is not an opinion, it's a fact. See my first post in this thread for where the true threat comes from: white-supremacists.

I've posted links regarding immigrants commuting less crime than citizens.

Hint: Constitustional powers must be used in a constitutional manner, which excludes basing those actions on religious animus.

The actual executive order has no such thing. It is the psychoanalysis of the motive of Trump and his statements as a candidate and as President that may prove that animus to be true. Yet a lot of Congressional lawyers have said that is not to be considered, only the content of the order itself.

Same for firing the FBI Director, the law says for any reason or no reason. But somehow people have added their opinion to mean any or no reason unless its a reason they dont like. But the law doesnt say that.

The President is also not required to prove that the order is for national security, just say that it is. This is because he gets that deference due to this position of knowing things the court may not. Basically I dont see the right of the courts to second guess the President anywhere in the Constitution. His powers are given to him due to his elected position as President and head of the executive branch.

So I guess we will more than likely know who is right in the next 24 hours or so.

I've posted links regarding immigrants commuting less crime than citizens.

Crime committed by illegal aliens should be zero, not simply less than citizens.

@Clamenza:

How many swim across the English channel?

Hoe much larger is the Atlantic Ocean in comparison to the English channel? Incomparable

Again, the president cannot exercise his constitutional power in an unconstitutional manner. Firing the FBI director is exercising a constitutional power. Firing the FBI director to obstruct justice is exercising the constitutional power in an unconstitutional (illegal) manner.

The courts have rarely, if ever, been confronted with a situation in which the president's motives have been so transparent.

The constitution is the source of governments power. The contours of that power are delineated in case law. Have you read the case law regarding the president's power?

Waiting for SCOTUS to speak on this is better than waiting for Christmas.

Crime committed by illegal aliens should be zero, not simply less than citizens.

Please list which crimes it is acceptable for US citizens to commit, thanks x

Crime committed by illegal aliens should be zero, not simply less than citizens.

That does not negate the fact that immigrants aren't running rampant committing crimes, which means a travel ban and a wall are wholly unnecessary.

Firing the FBI director to obstruct justice is exercising the constitutional power in an unconstitutional (illegal) manner.

According to Dershowitz, obstruction of justice in this case is not possible. Trump simply orders Comey to stop investigating Flynn. It is within his powers, unless Dershowitz is wrong.

The constitution is the source of governments power. The contours of that power are delineated in case law. Have you read the case law regarding the president's power?

Some of it, but not all. Another example of a presidential power is the pardon. The president can pardon anyone for any reason and cannot be second guessed by the courts, or be made to give an answer as to why a pardon is or is not given. No intent or motive is involved in this, it is simply a power that you have when you are the President under Article II, Section 2. I guess we will be finding out if an executive order issued under national security is the same as this, or different.

Please list which crimes it is acceptable for US citizens to commit, thanks x

None, but as a citizen you have the right to be present in the country in order to commit a crime if you so choose. Illegal aliens have no right to be present in the first place.

Black:

I'm looking forward to speaking with you after we get a decision from SCOTUS. I've read a great deal of Supreme Court cases and all I can say is we have to wait, as you have said.

That does not negate the fact that immigrants aren't running rampant committing crimes, which means a travel ban and a wall are wholly unnecessary.

I think people whose family members were unnecessarily murdered by someone who had no legal right to be in the country would think differently....much differently.

But ok, lets see what the SCOTUS says. If I am wrong about the travel ban, then I will have learned something about the Constitution and Executive Orders that I didnt know.

We will all learn from SCOTUS on this. Notice I have never once said the travel ban was unconstitutional? That's because I know not to try to predict what SCOTUS will do.

I have defended the judges that stated the ban and explained how a president exercising constitutional powers could be unconstitutional because of the manner. But I have never once tried to predict what SCOTUS will do.

@Swift: Yes, there will be much to discuss whichever way it goes. I am looking forward to it as well, especially to see how SCOTUS deals with all of the campaign and Twitter statements and if those even matter or not.

I was really surprised the other day when they overruled the federal trademark law and said that even offensive speech still has protection under the 1st Amendment. That surprised me that the SCOTUS would say it is ok to trademark and use a so called racist term for commercial enterprise. I would have thought they would says it mean/feelings/whatever and cant be used. But even the liberal judges said it was allowable. So lets see how this executive order/travel ban thing turns out.

@Black:

Free speech is the bedrock of our democracy, that's why it is protected in the first amendment. For the government to restrict speech, it must have a compelling reason and there must be no less restrictive manner than what is being advanced. Protecting feelings is not a compelling reason.

Studying constitutional law can be a trip, eh. But, we digress.

Enjoy your evening.

This is also interesting to me because if one presidential power is second guessed/diminished by the courts then what about others?

Lets say Trump tomorrow pardons every single person in his administration/transition team who is under investigation by Mueller. Then lets say he is dumb enough to give a reason for the pardon that someone doesnt like or thinks is shady. I think people would go nuts! But it is his discretion under the Constitution to do so.

But can people then block his pardon power too and take that to Supreme Court as well? Talking about motive and intent and expecting him to provide justification for it? Bush pardoned 6 people including some who may have been planning to implicate him if he didnt pardon them first. Not much was said about it back then. So I just wonder how much of all of this is legitimate Constitution type things and how much is just because Trump the one doing it. Looking forward to the ruling on the travel ban anyway, enjoy your evening.

@Black:

Your concern will be considered by SCOTUS. It's a legitimate concern. But, as I said, there have been very few, if any, instances where a president's motivation has been transparent and clearly unconstitutional. (I'm sure you can agree that treating a particular religion differently is not constitutional.)

I would imagine that if SCOTUS does find the ban unconstitutional, it will go to great lengths to make its ruling very narrow so as to avoid the slippery slope you mentioned.

How was the 25,000 number arrived at? Did the jihadis self-report?

Thats an estimate by none other than the British government.

The court isn't an authority. What this poster clearly doesn't understand is how courts work.

Hmmm.....I think what most liberals don't understand or even try to dive a bit into politics instead of putting pure emotion into their arguments they'd be a lot further along in lie, especially in US politics instead of roaming around with the Buffaloes and Gila Monsters.

The received evidence, much of which is eyewitness testimony that tells the court what a person has done or was thinking, and then rule according to the evidence.

Like when Comey said, Loretta Lynch told him to call the "investigation a manner" a direct order, therefore we now have evidence that a sitting former AG was purposely trying to coheres and interfere with an ongoing investigation, evidence which was brought forth by Comey in his testimony. If courts always ruled on the evidence alone OJ would have served life, Lois Lerner would have been in prison by now. Those are just a few examples. So I'm not buying it, not for a second.

@swift Yeah but by then the ruling will have to be so narrow that basically it only applies to Trump.

But it would also have to be broad enough where he can never do any executive order about anything Muslim religion related again- even in his 2nd term? That could hurt future decisions of national security too.

Would his comments ever expire or would he ever be considered rehabilitated in his thinking someday? Lots to consider but enough for today.

The lower court rulings didn't bar the administration from carrying out their review. So, in the past 5 months how far along have they moved the review of the vetting process? Any major changes? Or was this all a political stunt?

"We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” Trump

So... if sooo vital, why didn't they complete the 30 day review of the vetting procedures called for in the first order? Why the slow down ?

Hmmm.....I think what most liberals don't understand or even try to dive a bit into politics instead of putting pure emotion into their arguments they'd be a lot further along in lie, especially in US politics instead of roaming around with the Buffaloes and Gila Monsters.

Sorry, my emotions don't digest that sentence.

Like when Comey said, Loretta Lynch told him to call the "investigation a manner" a direct order, therefore we now have evidence that a sitting former AG was purposely trying to coheres and interfere with an ongoing investigation, evidence which was brought forth by Comey in his testimony. 

I want to investigation a matter, but trying to coheres and interfere is evidence that was testimony by liberal Comey. It is Democrat and Benghazi.

If courts always ruled on the evidence alone OJ would have served life, Lois Lerner would have been in prison by now. Those are just a few examples. So I'm not buying it, not for a second.

Courts rule on the basis of what they had for breakfast. I like cereal and bacon and half an egg over easy. I want my judges to decide this way. Otherwise, I'm not buying it, not for a second.

The President has the power to set immigration policy, but the President doesn't not have the power to discriminate, meaning he can't create an immigration policy that bans all Jewish men, for example. Just like Congress has the ability to create laws, it doesn't mean they can create discriminatory laws.

So far the courts have ruled that Trump's numerous and world famous statements lead them to believe this is part of a Muslim ban, which is discriminating based on religion. And he can thank himself for that. Even if you think the court is engaging in "mind reading" you're still stuck admitting this is a religious ban because of Trump's words and you're just hoping the courts bar themselves from thinking about that.

To put it another way, you are hoping a technical issue gets an illegal ban on the books.

Sorry, my emotions don't digest that sentence.

Seems like liberals haven't been able to digest that their party is the party of "pathetic" since 2010 losing almost every election since.

1000 legislative seats, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, Maybe one day, libs will finally get it right.

The President has the power to set immigration policy, but the President doesn't not have the power to discriminate,

Exactly, so as to why the left is wasting everyone's time on falsified allegations is not only asinine, but very troubling.

So far the courts have ruled that Trump's numerous and world famous statements lead them to believe this is part of a Muslim ban, which is discriminating based on religion. And he can thank himself for that.

But we don't know what the Supreme Court will say, so let's chill out until the ruling.

Even if you think the court is engaging in "mind reading" you're still stuck admitting this is a religious ban because of Trump's words and you're just hoping the courts bar themselves from thinking about that.

Actually, I was thinking off something else, but that's an entirely different manner.

To put it another way, you are hoping a technical issue gets an illegal ban on the books.

I don't see it as technical, but I know libs do.

Bass I'd be happy to give you the links to the court cases if you'd like to read them. Just ask.

Already got them and?

@bass

Wow, four "libs" and one "the left" packed into one powerful post. Convincing stuff. Don't let four millennia of rhetoric get in the way of bass' incisive, intuitive chops.

Seems like liberals haven't been able to digest that their party is the party of "pathetic" since 2010 losing almost every election since.

Owie! The only thing that hurts more than seeing democratic process, political discourse, and any remaining regard for truth flushed down the toilet by a reality TV star charlatan and his opportunistic GOP enablers is my party losing a popularity contest. I admit. It's about me. I want to win every time, and I want my half egg and bacon with ketchup and I want a big car and all my best friends in the back seat!

I just figured if you knew more about the case you could contribute more to the conversation.

Wow, four "libs" and one "the left" packed into one powerful post. Convincing stuff. Don't let four millennia of rhetoric get in the way of bass' incisive, intuitive chops.

Hey, I offered to put the information right in front of him. I'm doing my part.

Wow, four "libs" and one "the left" packed into one powerful post. Convincing stuff. Don't let four millennia of rhetoric get in the way of bass' incisive, intuitive chops.

Thanks, I never would, that's how I roll.

As long as it's implemented, you can call it cookies and cream for all I care.

I care more than that. And so should you.

It is going to be overturned in the Fall because the Supreme Court will rarely lift an injunction unless they feel the lower court will indeed be reversed. The lower court orders are invalid on their face. Even if Trump was trying to exclude all Muslims, which he wasn't, there is absolutely no “first amendment freedom of religion” protection for aliens, nor do the courts have any jurisdiction over the subject matter of who is or isn’t permitted entry into USA on national defense grounds. It’s absurd, ignorant, or political decisions like these that create such widespread disrespect for the judiciary.

Why is the country who supports world wide terrorism, Saudi Arabi, not on the ban least? 15 of the 19 hijackers for 9/11 were Saudis. Saudis teaches wahhabism (extremist Islam) and funds Daesh. 

Not only that, why are we doing billions in deals with that country, just so they can do it again!? But yea, lets all ban Iran who was not on any of the hijacked plans, who does not support Daesh or have any real influence or interest outside the Middle East it self.

The travel ban is wrong to begin with. And just plain stupid when you don't ban the people who are/fund the terrorists. Then again, what sense did it make, after Saudi attacked the Twin Towers in the US, to attack Iraq on the straight out lie of them having, making, etc. Weapons of Mass Destruction, when much more deserving places, like Saudi Arabi deserved our wraith!?

"Don't worry daddy, I will get the bad guys for you!"

there is absolutely no “first amendment freedom of religion” protection for aliens

I hope you meant aliens not in the US. You see, this little thing called the 14th Amendment extends rights to all "people," not all "citizens."

Travel ban ruled legit by the Supreme Court. Another win for President Trump.

Tough win for the regressive left. It looks more and more that Obama was actually tacitly approving Russian interference in the election with the assumption it would help Hillary.

Travel ban ruled legit by the Supreme Court. Another win for President Trump.

LOL! The court decided that the ban cannot be applied to anyone with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

So pretty much everyone who would have been banned still cannot be banned. But you go on ahead inside your bubble.

Obama was actually tacitly approving Russian interference in the election with the assumption it would help Hillary.

Very clearly stated and accepted by all that any impact of the Russian interference would have and did help Trump. It was specifically designed to hurt Hillary, and did so. To suggest it could have possibly helped Hillary is either a comical misunderstanding of the issues or a deliberate and foolish misrepresentation. Which is it?

It's a privilege to enter any country where a person isn't a citizen of that country, not a right. correct, but the US like many other members of the UN has to abide by the UN charter on human rights and cant bloke those rights just because these people arent US citizens or not living within the US

So pretty much everyone who would have been banned still cannot be banned. But you go on ahead inside your bubble.

But it the Courts rule later this year that Trump's temporary ban is constitutional and as the president has the absolute right to block anyone he deems as a threat to the nation, then its full steam ahead.