Jump to content
IGNORED

SCOTUS lifts some Injunctions Against Trump's Travel Ban


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against the White House’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments in October.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- Trump's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the Court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The justices decided to review the broader constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held in the Fall.

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and the president has been eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died. Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim and even more definitive victory after the October arguments.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,868
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,621
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Could this also be a two edged sword for Christians attempting to flee persecution from restricted countries?

who is a Christian and how do you tell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,868
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,621
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

I am more concerned with the safety of my grand children

there have been exceptions to the travel ban from the beginning....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Could this also be a two edged sword for Christians attempting to flee persecution from restricted countries?

Maybe, but the president's first concern and first responsibility is the safety of the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

So, anyone with a relationship be it a job, family, school or such can still come. And those without such cannot.  

Sounds like a win-win to me.  That is how it should have been written in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

52 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

So, anyone with a relationship be it a job, family, school or such can still come. And those without such cannot.  

Sounds like a win-win to me.  That is how it should have been written in the first place.

Yeah, I agree, there's no problem with that interpretation. The administration had basically unilaterally abrogated that part of the original ban anyway upon realizing that the way it was written kept a lot of people out who they either did not wish to keep out, in practice at least, or wanted to keep out without realizing the political fallout that would ensue. The part of the ban that really matters for the purposes of vetting and so forth were, at least until the opinion from the october arguments is disseminated, upheld. This is a pretty significant blow to the democrats claim on unconstitutionality of it ultimately. I'd be incredibly shocked if the status quo from now to october is not maintained after october with regards to the ban itself. I think the democrats probably helped trump out a little bit by the immediate mass exposure of the folks that weren't being allowed to travel here after the very first ban was implemented, insofar as, had they not challenged it legally to the degree that they did, it would've been a political gift that kept on giving as far as their side is concerned. He now gets to claim a victory to his base while not really suffering the effects that 15 or 20 months of students and foreign nationals with permanent residency not being allowed in would've brought with it.

An interesting thing to note here going forward is that kennedy split his decision, siding partially with trump and partially with the challengers, with alito, roberts, gorsuch, and thomas dissenting from upholding the stay on the parts mentioned above. Something like this really shows you the difference that his resignation could make if it were to happen in the next couple of years with regards to cases such as this and others that will have much farther reaching implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  907
  • Content Per Day:  0.37
  • Reputation:   264
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/10/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, other one said:

I am more concerned with the safety of my grand children

there have been exceptions to the travel ban from the beginning....

Your grandchildren live in one of the countries on the banned list? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  907
  • Content Per Day:  0.37
  • Reputation:   264
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/10/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Maybe, but the president's first concern and first responsibility is the safety of the American people.

As was obvious from the beginning with this ban. Unfortunately, president Trump's opponents don't think about the safety of the American people. They think about how it would be better if America was as under siege as Europe. If only we'd just learn to be tolerant of falling into that condition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Online

10 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Your grandchildren live in one of the countries on the banned list? 

I am pretty sure he means he is more concerned with the safety of his grandkids in the us than in whether or not a few Christian refugees make it in to the us along with thousands of muslim refugees who could be terrorists.

8 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

As was obvious from the beginning with this ban. Unfortunately, president Trump's opponents don't think about the safety of the American people. They think about how it would be better if America was as under siege as Europe. If only we'd just learn to be tolerant of falling into that condition. 

I think its worse than that. I think they just dont care about the safety of american people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

As was obvious from the beginning with this ban. Unfortunately, president Trump's opponents don't think about the safety of the American people. They think about how it would be better if America was as under siege as Europe. If only we'd just learn to be tolerant of falling into that condition. 

Leftists don't care about the country or our people.  They support the satanic followers of islam and probably don't even know why.  I think a lot of them are following their master rather than American interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...