Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban

[tytlyf]

It's about risk of attacks, ie, probablistic analysis.
Attacks are far & few between, so one can't judge that a policy is good
simply because we've had no attacks within a small time frame.

Wasn't the temporary ban addressing the threat a few months ago? Trump seemed pretty immediate about the issue. Oh well, maybe this 90 day thing will start next year after all these attacks.

 

[Quetzal]

Well, we better hurry up and get this ban going to stop all these attacks every day.

This is in response to the attacks in Europe and a voting platform from Trump and company. They appear to be assessing risk and probability. The approach and probable success rate can be discussed. But addressing this issue from extreme positions is not helpful, in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is in response to the attacks in Europe and a voting platform from Trump and company. They appear to be assessing risk and probability. The approach and probable success rate can be discussed. But addressing this issue from extreme positions is not helpful, in my opinion.

We mere citizens don't have access to info to properly evaluate the ban.
The only thing I can confidently say is that to base it upon religion would
be wrong. That would go against our Constitution & fundamental values,
which would have subversive & corrosive results.
While it would disparately affect Muslims, Islam should not be the focus.

 

[Quetzal]

We mere citizens don't have access to info to properly evaluate the ban.
The only thing I can confidently say is that to base it upon religion would
be wrong. That would go against our Constitution & fundamental values,
which would have subversive & corrosive results.
While it would disparately affect Muslims, Islam should not be the focus.

I agree, which brings the idea of "intent" into the discussion. The only thing we have to go on for that is what the Exec Branch has said. I am not 10% convinced but I don't have a suitable argument to the contrary outside of "NU UH"!

A sound argument for sure but didn't hold up well when I was 7, I question the effectiveness of it today.

 

[esmith]

So the ban is to prevent attacks, how many attacks have we had while this 'ban' hasn't been implemented?

What you fail to comprehend is that we the public do not hear about the attacks that were thwarted, we only hear about the ones that were not.
Does that answer your objection? Doubt it.

 

[Altfish]

It's about risk of attacks, ie, probablistic analysis.
Attacks are far & few between, so one can't judge that a policy is good
simply because we've had no attacks within a small time frame.

So why is there no gun control being implemented?

 

[tytlyf]

What you fail to comprehend is that we the public do not hear about the attacks that were thwarted, we only hear about the ones that were not.
Does that answer your objection? Doubt it.

I comprehend everything. So which recent attacks from these countries did we hear about?

 

[Quetzal]

I comprehend everything. So which recent attacks from these countries did we hear about?

That is the point, right? ESmith is addressing that we have incomplete information since we do not hear about attacks that are prevented.

 

[tytlyf]

That is the point, right? ESmith is addressing that we have incomplete information since we do not hear about attacks that are prevented.

We don't need to hear about attacks because our vetting process is already in place, our intelligence agencies are already doing their job. Outside of that, it's paranoia. The point is that the 'ban' doesn't address the problem.

 

[Quetzal]

The point is that the 'ban' doesn't address the problem.

Why not?

 

[esmith]

What you fail to comprehend is that we the public do not hear about the attacks that were thwarted, we only hear about the ones that were not.
Does that answer your objection? Doubt it.

I comprehend everything. So which recent attacks from these countries did we hear about?

Guess I will have to explain what I was saying.
Just because there were no terrorist plans that went to fruition does not mean that there were no plans. Simple no.

 

[tytlyf]

Guess I will have to explain what I was saying.
Just because there were no terrorist plans that went to fruition does not mean that there were no plans. Simple no.

And the track record shows that the people who want to attack us are already here. We believe our vetting process is doing a good job. You don't believe we vet period.

One of many
Facts don't back claim of 'haphazard' refugee vetting

 

[McBell]

So why is there no gun control being implemented?

My first guess is because there has not been a "gun control" law in the last decade or two that actually stopped criminals from getting guns.

But it seems to me that gun control is actually off topic.

 

[Altfish]

My first guess is because there has not been a "gun control" law in the last decade or two that actually stopped criminals from getting guns.

But it seems to me that gun control is actually off topic.

I only brought it up because Revoltingness said the ban was based on a Risk assessment.

 

[Revoltingest]

So why is there no gun control being implemented?

We do have gun control.
You kind would you add?

 

[Falvlun]

Guess I will have to explain what I was saying.
Just because there were no terrorist plans that went to fruition does not mean that there were no plans. Simple no.

If the plans were thwarted without a ban, then doesn't that mean our current vetting practices are working? Why do we need the ban then?

 

[sun rise]

This is one of those stories that immediately gets spun so it's useful to read more than one source. "much" vs "watered down" vs "vast majority" vs "limited". And a question that has to be answered during the SCOTUS process is whether or not the question is moot given the amount of time that has elapsed.

Supreme Court Reinstates Much of Trump's Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall
NBCNews.com - ‎42 minutes ago‎

Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump travel ban challenge, allows enforcement of parts of order
CNBC - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court decides to hear Trump travel ban arguments
CBS News - ‎1 hour ago‎

Victory for Trump: SCOTUS Restores Vast Majority of Travel Ban
National Review - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court Allows Watered-Down Travel Ban To Take Effect For Now
HuffPost - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court allows limited travel ban to take effect; will hear Trump appeal
The Hill - ‎2 hours ago‎

 

[tytlyf]

This is one of those stories that immediately gets spun so it's useful to read more than one source. "much" vs "watered down" vs "vast majority" vs "limited". And a question that has to be answered during the SCOTUS process is whether or not the question is moot given the amount of time that has elapsed.

Supreme Court Reinstates Much of Trump's Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall
NBCNews.com - ‎42 minutes ago‎

Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump travel ban challenge, allows enforcement of parts of order
CNBC - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court decides to hear Trump travel ban arguments
CBS News - ‎1 hour ago‎

Victory for Trump: SCOTUS Restores Vast Majority of Travel Ban
National Review - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court Allows Watered-Down Travel Ban To Take Effect For Now
HuffPost - ‎1 hour ago‎

Supreme Court allows limited travel ban to take effect; will hear Trump appeal
The Hill - ‎2 hours ago‎

What do you mean? The travel ban wasn't entirely implemented. Portions of it were.

 

[sun rise]

What do you mean? The travel ban wasn't entirely implemented. Portions of it were.

That's what I wrote so I don't understand your comment.

 

[Falvlun]

To clarify, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Constitutionality of the ban. That won't happen until they hear the case in October.

What happened today is that they agreed to hear the case (in October). In a 6-3 decision, they also decided that the ban can be partially implemented until the case is heard. (The 3 dissenting believed that the ban in its entirety should be implemented until October.)