Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban

[Nous]

Breaking: The Supreme Court of the United States reinstates the Trump administration 90-day ban on travelers from six countries with known extensive Islamic terrorist training camps identified by US intelligence where the governments of such countries allow such terrorist training camps to operate without government intervention and which recruit foreigners from countries outside the six to come and train in terrorism.

You should have read the order. The Court left in place the injunction as it applies to all complainants (Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii) and those similarly situated: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

The Supreme Court agrees the ban is not a "Muslim ban" but a legal security measure, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

The Court expressed no such "agreement".

 

[Underhill]

I expected the original temporay ban didn't impose a schedule for figuring out what to do,
but would rather be a temporary policy which would be renewed until no longer needed.

Note:
The above shouldn't be interpreted to mean approval of his ban.
I don't know enuf to either approve or disapprove.

I don't approve but it is as much for who isn't on the list as who is. I am getting supremely sick of watching president after president treat Saudi Arabia like our vaunted allies while marginalizing countries like Iran. Yes, I realize the historical differences. But in most of the terror attacks, including 9-11, Saudi Arabian citizens make up a large percentage of the guilty. Their country is a place that treats women worse than in Iran, has roving bands of religious enforcers, practices public execution and a host of other atrocities, many of which Iran does not. Both are controlled by religious nuts but Iran is more westernized than Saudi Arabia.

I'm also not convinced it will accomplish much. There are extremist Muslims in every corner of the globe. I've seen attacks in India, bombings in the UK and beatings in Western Africa... we've even experienced some home brewed here in the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't approve but it is as much for who isn't on the list as who is. I am getting supremely sick of watching president after president treat Saudi Arabia like our vaunted allies while marginalizing countries like Iran. Yes, I realize the historical differences. But in most of the terror attacks, including 9-11, Saudi Arabian citizens make up a large percentage of the guilty. Their country is a place that treats women worse than in Iran, has roving bands of religious enforcers, practices public execution and a host of other atrocities, many of which Iran does not. Both are controlled by religious nuts but Iran is more westernized than Saudi Arabia.

I'm also not convinced it will accomplish much. There are extremist Muslims in every corner of the globe. I've seen attacks in India, bombings in the UK and beatings in Western Africa... we've even experienced some home brewed here in the US.

I agree.
Iran should be an ally.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't approve but it is as much for who isn't on the list as who is. I am getting supremely sick of watching president after president treat Saudi Arabia like our vaunted allies while marginalizing countries like Iran. Yes, I realize the historical differences. But in most of the terror attacks, including 9-11, Saudi Arabian citizens make up a large percentage of the guilty. Their country is a place that treats women worse than in Iran, has roving bands of religious enforcers, practices public execution and a host of other atrocities, many of which Iran does not. Both are controlled by religious nuts but Iran is more westernized than Saudi Arabia.

I agree. But because of our economic relationship with them, this is all wishful thinking I am afraid.

 

[Nous]

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.‎

That is a question that the Court should address. Is the "travel ban" from these particular countries supposed to be forever? Actually it was supposed to be temporary, in order for the administration to determine if it was effective and what other measures would be necessary to prevent these alleged terrorists from entering the country. Those are questions that the travel ban itself will not answer. And if the administration did not engage in the activities of assessing the issues noted in the EO and making the variety of reports, then one can only wonder what was the purpose of the ban.

 

[Altfish]

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

If the US is serious then systems and controls similar to the UK

 

[sun rise]

That is a question that the Court should address. Is the "travel ban" from these particular countries supposed to be forever? Actually it was supposed to be temporary, in order for the administration to determine if it was effective and what other measures would be necessary to prevent these alleged terrorists from entering the country. Those are questions that the travel ban itself will not answer. And if the administration did not engage in the activities of assessing the issues noted in the EO and making the variety of reports, then one can only wonder what was the purpose of the ban.

The court explicitly asked the parties to address whether the issue was moot given the time that had passed. I probably should not written it that way initially.

 

[sun rise]

I agree.
Iran should be an ally.

We're agreeing so much recently that I might have to start calling you 'bro' which would be weirdness of a high order.

 

[esmith]

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?

No, that means either they, the terrorist, were already in the country or came in recently.
Would you rather stop them from getting in or let them in and hope you can stop them?
In other words would you rather ingest a poison and hope the doctors can counter it or have someone stop you from ingesting the poison?

 

[Nous]

The court explicitly asked the parties to address whether the issue was moot given the time that had passed. I probably should not written it that way initially.

You said it just fine. I didn't notice that the Court asked the parties to address the mootness issue.

I don't know how the government can argue that the temporary ban is needed now, as all the reports the EO required from DHS, the AG and SoS should have already been completed and submitted to the President; none of the reports necessitated that the persons from the 6 countries be banned from entering the country, in order to collect the required information and write the reports. Apparently no such reports have been released to the public, if they were ever written--which, again, rasises suspicion of the real motive for the ban.

 

[Falvlun]

No, that means either they, the terrorist, were already in the country or came in recently.
Would you rather stop them from getting in or let them in and hope you can stop them?
In other words would you rather ingest a poison and hope the doctors can counter it or have someone stop you from ingesting the poison?

From what I understand, you were speaking of hypothetical thwartings that you believe have happened, i.e. We can't claim that no terrorist attacks were attempted because we don't hear about those that were thwarted. But since we don't know the details of these possible thwartings that occurred, how do you know the origins of these possible attackers? How do you know that the ban would have stopped them? How do you know they weren't American citizens, or from Saudi Arabia, or that they weren't turned away by our current vetting process?

We do know that there have been 0 deaths from refugee terrorist attacks in our country since 1980. We know that of the 3.25 refugees welcomed into our country, only 20 have been convicted of committing or attempting to commit terrorism. That's a pretty darn good track record.

We also know that of the terrorist attacks that have occurred, the vast majority of the perpetrators are American citizens or from countries not included in the ban (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan). So, the ban wouldn't have stopped them.

There is simply no evidence that we are "ingesting poison", as your analogy argues. There is even less evidence that the ban would prevent the ingestion of poison.

The ban is a draconian solution to a problem that barely exists, and worse, it doesn't particularly solve the part of the problem that does exist.

 

[Nous]

No, that means either they, the terrorist, were already in the country or came in recently.

Which means that the travel ban, if it had not be TRO'd, would not have been effective at thwarting these terrorists.

 

[esmith]

The President's Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will go into effect. Get over it.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the US is serious then systems and controls similar to the UK

That would run smack dab into our Constitution.
I much prefer that our gun control be both effective & legal.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're agreeing so much recently that I might have to start calling you 'bro' which would be weirdness of a high order.

I agree, bruderherz.

 

[Falvlun]

The President's Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will go into effect. Get over it.

Well, no, not yet. They allowed a partial version of it to be implemented until they actually hear the case in October. It won't be until that ruling that we find out if they uphold it or not.

 

[UpperLimits]

So why is there no gun control being implemented?

Because every Democrat is so opposed to Trump that if he even hinted at the possibility of "gun control," half of them would join the NRA, and the rest would be going to the 9th circuit court whining about the potential infringement on their second amendment rights!! (TIC)

 

[esmith]

Well, no, not yet. They allowed a partial version of it to be implemented until they actually hear the case in October. It won't be until that ruling that we find out if they uphold it or not.

Agreed. However that date is more than 120 days out and the travel ban will have expired unless a new one is issued. Thus the court will most likely take up the case.

 

[Nous]

The President's Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will go into effect. Get over it.

This is what the Court did:

We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

 

[Quetzal]

The President's Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will go into effect. Get over it.

Not quite yet. But it is trending in that direction. We will know more in October with the full hearing.