Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban

[esmith]

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

spin it any way you want. the EO was not a "Muslim ban".

 

[Nous]

spin it any way you want. the EO was not a "Muslim ban".

I quoted the Opinion for your benefit as you apparently had not read it. I didn't need to spin it.

If you were to read the Opinion, you would see that by upholding the injunction for all complainants and those similarly situated, the clear signal the Court transmitted is that it does not accept the government's argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) combined with Mandel gives the President the authority to bar entry of any non-criminal class of people merely by uttering the words “national security” as a blanket “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” that thereby prevents the Court from “look[ing] behind the exercise of discretion”. This was the government's one and only argument, and it wasn't presented until the case got to the Fourth Circuit. When the Supreme Court begins to “look behind” the reasons for the EO, at least some of the Justices will find, just as those on the Fourth Circuit found, that the travel ban would not have prevented any terrorist act to date, would not have barred entry to any of the 9/11 hijackers, and that Christian-majority countries such as Venezuela and the Philippines were not included despite being “significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contain[ing[ active conflict zones,” and being unwilling or unable “to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States”. They might find that the various reports the EO mandates were not even written. I have no doubt that at least some on the Court will want to apply the Lemon test, which is likely to leave a bitter aftertaste in someone's mouth.

BTW, assuming that Justice Kennedy votes with the majority in this case, the opinion will be his to author--he delivered Din, and the Per Curiam certainly sounds like his writing. So perhaps he's planning to hang around at least for the next term.

 

[esmith]

I quoted the Opinion for your benefit as you apparently had not read it. I didn't need to spin it.

If you were to read the Opinion, you would see that by upholding the injunction for all complainants and those similarly situated, the clear signal the Court transmitted is that it does not accept the government's argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) combined with Mandel gives the President the authority to bar entry of any non-criminal class of people merely by uttering the words “national security” as a blanket “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” that thereby prevents the Court from “look[ing] behind the exercise of discretion”. This was the government's one and only argument, and it wasn't presented until the case got to the Fourth Circuit. When the Supreme Court begins to “look behind” the reasons for the EO, at least some of the Justices will find, just as those on the Fourth Circuit found, that the travel ban would not have prevented any terrorist act to date, would not have barred entry to any of the 9/11 hijackers, and that Christian-majority countries such as Venezuela and the Philippines were not included despite being “significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contain[ing[ active conflict zones,” and being unwilling or unable “to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States”. They might find that the various reports the EO mandates were not even written. I have no doubt that at least some on the Court will want to apply the Lemon test, which is likely to leave a bitter aftertaste in someone's mouth.

BTW, assuming that Justice Kennedy votes with the majority in this case, the opinion will be his to author--he delivered Din, and the Per Curiam certainly sounds like his writing. So perhaps he's planning to hang around at least for the next term.

No I did not read it; I didn't have to. The court allowed the EO to stand with minor caveats and that is all I could really care about.

 

[Nous]

No I did not read it; I didn't have to.

Yes, ignorance is its own best argument.

I am certain it would have been too taxing for you to read and understand that brief Per Curiam. It would have just confused you.

 

[esmith]

Yes, ignorance is its own best argument.

I am certain it would have been too taxing for you to read and understand that brief Per Curiam. It would have just confused you.

Yeah probably so, I'm just a dumb hick from the sticks.
However I am smart enough to realize that the liberal courts, as usual, had their heads where the sun doesn't shine.
Yeah I'm rude, crude, and socially unacceptable; and those are my good attributes

 

[Nous]

However I am smart enough to realize that the liberal courts, as usual, had their heads where the sun doesn't shine.

Why do you think that assessment is "smart"?

You don't have any argument by which to conclude that the EO is constitutional, do you?

 

[esmith]

Why do you think that assessment is "smart"?

You don't have any argument by which to conclude that the EO is constitutional, do you?

Yeah I do. The SCOTUS let the major portions of the EO stand. Or do you disagree with the SCOTUS?

 

[Nous]

Yeah I do. The SCOTUS let the major portions of the EO stand. Or do you disagree with the SCOTUS?

I agree with the Court upholding the injunction as it applies to all complainants until it can review the case. I say that the Court's handling of the injunction is entirely right and reasonable.

 

[esmith]

I agree with the Court upholding the injunction as it applies to all complainants until it can review the case. I say that the Court's handling of the injunction is entirely right and reasonable.

Ok I see the point you are making.
The EO can be enacted with minor stipulations until the court makes a ruling.
However, by doing so they basically ruled against the 9th & 4th Circuit courts ruling on stopping the enactment of the EO

 

[Nous]

Ok I see the point you are making.
The EO can be enacted with minor stipulations until the court makes a ruling.

That's merely your delusion. I didn't suggest any such thing as that upholding the injunction in the case of all complainants and people similarly situated is equivalent to "enacting the EO with minor stipulations".

 

[esmith]

That's merely your delusion. I didn't suggest any such thing as that upholding the injunction in the case of all complainants and people similarly situated is equivalent to "enacting the EO with minor stipulations".

note: I edited my post during the time you replied

 

[Nous]

note: I edited my post during the time you replied

Yes, but you didn't really need to add another delusional statement. Your post was adequately delusional as it was.

So you still can't articulate any argument that the EO is constitutional?

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, but you didn't really need to add another delusional statement. Your post was adequately delusional as it was.

So you still can't articulate any argument that the EO is constitutional?

Rush hasn't told him yet. Rush is too busy trying to spin the healthcare defeat. Rush is out there tossing around another conspiracy theory about Mitch McConnell introducing the bill to the CBO as a 'trojan horse' to intentionally get a low score. Then Mitch is so brilliant he can then make the adjustments.....

The man lies all day long, but some people believe it. Far too many people.

 

[esmith]

Yes, but you didn't really need to add another delusional statement. Your post was adequately delusional as it was.

So you still can't articulate any argument that the EO is constitutional?

When someone replies to something I wrote, then I edit the wording in the post I feel it is my responsibility to inform said person that I have done so even if that person doesn't care one way or another.

And you can't articulate any argument that the EO is unconstitutional.

 

[Nous]

Rush hasn't told him yet.

I doubt the Rush will tell anyone, either. After all, it would require formulating an argument.

 

[Nous]

And you can't articulate any argument that the EO is unconstitutional.

False. It is unconstitutional because, as the Court has already noted, it prevents entry of people who have a bona fide connection to US citizens, businesses and state institutions.

 

[esmith]

False. It is unconstitutional because, as the Court has already noted, it prevents entry of people who have a bona fide connection to US citizens, businesses and state institutions.

If so then why did the SCOTUS not let the rulings of the 9th and 4th Court of Appeals stand?

 

[Nous]

If so then why did the SCOTUS not let the rulings of the 9th and 4th Court of Appeals stand?

The Court did "leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion." The Court only stayed the injunctions with respect to "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." (A decision that is in every way correct.)

All you need to do is read and comprehend the brief Opinion.

 

[esmith]

The Court did "leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion." The Court only stayed the injunctions with respect to "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." (A decision that is in every way correct.)

All you need to do is read and comprehend the brief Opinion.

Nope, don't care to.
Maybe you can get someone else to play with you.

 

[Falvlun]

Nope, don't care to.
Maybe you can get someone else to play with you.

Why wouldn't you read the Court opinion when discussing the Court opinion? You are making incorrect statements and inferences that would be cleared up if you just read the source material.