SCOTUS Reinstates Key Parts of Trump's Travel Ban

[NightTrain]

A heavy slap to the activist judges playing political games - I imagine those hacks are feeling a bit sheepish today. And looking at the wording of the temporary ruling, the full review in October is going to be very embarrassing to the liberal judges in the 9th and 4th circuits.


“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,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch. “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.’”


At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.
Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-trump-appeal-travel-ban-block.html

Gorsuch is right where he should be. What a great choice he was for SCOTUS.

I'm really looking forward to Kennedy and Bader-Ginsburg to be replaced with a couple more originalist constitution-minded Justices.

[jimnyc]

Yup. Many of us said all along that they were wrong, and that they were activists from the bench. The 9th is a joke, IMO.

[pete311]

Congrats on your minor victory

[pete311]

btw, wasn't the ban needed only for a few months to get the vetting process tightened up? Well, wtf have they been doing the past 7 months?

[NightTrain]

Congrats on your minor victory

Minor? This decision just put all SJW judges on notice. The wording in the ruling is pretty clear as to how this will ultimately unfold and is a solid rebuke of politically motivated judges perverting their duties as they ignore the law.

It may be a lot of things; but minor it is not.

[Abbey Marie]

:joy4:

[jimnyc]

btw, wasn't the ban needed only for a few months to get the vetting process tightened up? Well, wtf have they been doing the past 7 months?

And during that time, lordy only knows if some fanatical radicalized scumbag may have entered the country. I'll feel safer with more scrutiny, more vetting and the downright rejection of those that cannot be vetted.

[pete311]

Minor? This decision just put all SJW judges on notice. The wording in the ruling is pretty clear as to how this will ultimately unfold and is a solid rebuke of politically motivated judges perverting their duties as they ignore the law.

It may be a lot of things; but minor it is not.

You are at the level of federal judges to determine what is lawful?

[pete311]

And during that time, lordy only knows if some fanatical radicalized scumbag may have entered the country. I'll feel safer with more scrutiny, more vetting and the downright rejection of those that cannot be vetted.

Yeah maybe one from Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, that already happened. Oh wait, they still aren't in the ban. So you've had 7 months to figure the vetting process out. When will you be ready? I'm guessing never, because it wasn't about that. Or maybe it was and it's because the state dept still has tons of vacancies due to Tillerson's ineptitude. Pick one.

[NightTrain]

btw, wasn't the ban needed only for a few months to get the vetting process tightened up? Well, wtf have they been doing the past 7 months?

Being obstructed by Marxist Moonbats at every turn.

And now that the petty roadblocks have been removed, progress can commence.

Say it with me, Petey : Thank You, President Trump! :thumb:

[pete311]

Being obstructed by Marxist Moonbats at every turn.

And now that the petty roadblocks have been removed, progress can commence.

Say it with me, Petey : Thank You, President Trump! :thumb:

So what was the state dept doing these past 7 months?

[jimnyc]

Yeah maybe one from Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, that already happened. Oh wait, they still aren't in the ban. So you've had 7 months to figure the vetting process out. When will you be ready? I'm guessing never, because it wasn't about that. Or maybe it was and it's because the state dept still has tons of vacancies due to Tillerson's ineptitude. Pick one.

Did you ever think they needed this ban in order to invoke their extreme vetting or whatever they call it? Sure, what they have been doing for 6 months is the best they can, and now it will be easier. And hopefully better odds in preventing a radical from entering the US. Why is this such a problem? If someone can be vetted and they ain't a terrorist, the welcome to the USA!

[NightTrain]

So what was the state dept doing these past 7 months?

I see your reading comprehension is still nil. Let's review :


Being obstructed by Marxist Moonbats at every turn.

And when you ask the silly question again, here's your answer :


Being obstructed by Marxist Moonbats at every turn.

[pete311]

I see your reading comprehension is still nil. Let's review :



[/COLOR]And when you ask the silly question again, here's your answer :

[/COLOR]

NT, news to me that moonbats were obstructing the construction of new vetting policies and procedures. Where can I learn more?

[NightTrain]

NT, news to me that moonbats were obstructing the construction of new vetting policies and procedures. Where can I learn more?

Your obtuse shtick isn't convincing, just FYI.

Explain how it's possible to implement vetting policies and procedures when the EO itself is blocked by moonbat judges.

[pete311]

Your obtuse shtick isn't convincing, just FYI.

Explain how it's possible to implement vetting policies and procedures when the EO itself is blocked by moonbat judges.

What does the ban have to do with updating immigration procedures? How does the ban not being in place prevent the procedures from being updated?

[jimnyc]

What does the ban have to do with updating immigration procedures? How does the ban not being in place prevent the procedures from being updated?

It's additional security. It allows them to 'impede' and disallow certain folks - whereas now they may be powerless to an extent in stopping people.

If it's protecting America, and an additional layer of protection, why do you have such a problem with it?

[hjmick]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the Fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

[NightTrain]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

I was reading that earlier today as well. Sounds like it's a moot point to pursue this any further, except for getting complete clarity over the idiotic injunctions issued earlier to put that crap to bed. That would possibly be a risky move, but by the wording on that decision it seems like a slam dunk to me.

[jimnyc]

Considering that the administration has signaled that their travel "ban" would go into effect 72 hours after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, my guess is they already have a plan...


What I don't see is a need for the Court to hear any oral arguments in the fall. According to everything I've read, the restrictions were intended to last for only 90 days...

That is correct, or maybe it was 120 days? And THAT is the part that I don't understand. I would have went for a longer time. The time they asked for has went and past since the original executive order.

With any executive order aside, I think it simply makes sense to scrutinize more the folks coming from Syria, for example, a war torn country. It makes sense to know that it's not a nutcase, and they need to be vetted. If someone comes back clean, let them in asap. If someone comes back with a violent felony, no entry. If they can't find anything at all on someone, no entry.

[hjmick]

I was reading that earlier today as well. Sounds like it's a moot point to pursue this any further, except for getting complete clarity over the idiotic injunctions issued earlier to put that crap to bed. That would possibly be a risky move, but by the wording on that decision it seems like a slam dunk to me.


I've been drinking...

I'm thinking the 90 days is for them to iron out the vetting procedures while no one gets in during that time from those six countries. Of course that begs the question, as pete pointed out, why the hell haven't they been working on that while they waited? And now we're right back to... why bother to hear arguments in the Fall?

[aboutime]

So what was the state dept doing these past 7 months?



Poor petey. Still hasn't managed to pass the test for graduation at PRE-SCHOOL.
Someday, you may grow up, and feel like the SCARECROW in the Wizard of Oz.

<img src="http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/61000/Barack-Obama-as-the-Scarecrow-61331.jpg">

[Kathianne]

I've been drinking...

I'm thinking the 90 days is for them to iron out the vetting procedures while no one gets in during that time from those six countries. Of course that begs the question, as pete pointed, why the hell haven't they been working on that while they waited? And now we're right back at... why bother to hear arguments in the Fall?

Yeah, I sort of wonder the same, I'm sober. ;) To the best of my knowledge the State Dept., can use whatever vetting they want regarding granting visas. Now they've had nearly 6 months to come up with how the 'extreme vetting' should work and the 6 month timeframe restarts.

I do think though it is important that SCOTUS ruled on the legality of the EO. Just because judges (or voters), don't like Trump, doesn't mean that he should have less control over his legal functions. Congress can make laws to restrict some of those powers, but the judiciary? Nope, not if the actions are constitutional.

[NightTrain]

I'm pretty sure that there's been work done on the vetting procedures in anticipation of this.

I can make it short & sweet : DENIED!

The only exceptions I would make would be if there were some friendlies that put their ass on the line helping our troops out overseas... those guys get a green light. The rest of those people can head to Germany.