Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban

[esmith]

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.

All I am saying is that the "Court" made a decision that the EO, with modifications, would be allowed it to go into effect. Whereas the 9th and 4th ruled that stopped the EO completely from taking effect. This says that, as far as I'm concerned, they disagreed with the rulings of the 9th and 4th. I do not care to get into the finer points of their decision. So, I have no intention of discussing with @Nous or anyone else about the Constitutionality of the EO. I agree with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch that the entire EO should have been enacted. That is as far as I want, care, and will get into the discussion.

 

[Nous]

All I am saying is that the "Court" made a decision that the EO, with modifications, would be allowed it to go into effect. Whereas the 9th and 4th ruled that stopped the EO completely from taking effect. This says that, as far as I'm concerned, they disagreed with the rulings of the 9th and 4th.

Apparently the following is too far over your head to comprehend and perhaps to troubling to you, but as I already noted, by upholding the injunctions with respect to all the complainants (including the state of Hawaii) and all the people similarly situated, what the Court clearly indicated is that the majority does not accept the one and only argument put forth by the government (and the 4th Circuit dissenters). That one and only argument is that § 1182(f) and the Mandel holding give the President the authority to bar entry of anyone by simply uttering the phrase "national security" and the Court cannot "look behind" the reasons for such an EO. The Court will be "looking behind" the reasons for and purpose of the EO, and has ruled out nothing in relation to the EO.

I agree with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch that the entire EO should have been enacted.

These 3 Justices obviously didn't get a majority to agree with their view. The Per Curiam, in which the injunctions were left in effect with respect to all complainants and those similarly situated, was agreed to by the majority. What Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch advocated was obviously the losing opinion.

 

[esmith]

Apparently the following is too far over your head to comprehend and perhaps to troubling to you

Yep your absolutely correct, I don't have my head in the clouds.

 

[Falvlun]

All I am saying is that the "Court" made a decision that the EO, with modifications, would be allowed it to go into effect. Whereas the 9th and 4th ruled that stopped the EO completely from taking effect. This says that, as far as I'm concerned, they disagreed with the rulings of the 9th and 4th. I do not care to get into the finer points of their decision. So, I have no intention of discussing with @Nous or anyone else about the Constitutionality of the EO. I agree with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch that the entire EO should have been enacted. That is as far as I want, care, and will get into the discussion.

But your inference that "they disagreed with the rulings of the 9th and 4th" is incorrect. As the Opinion shows, the SC agreed with the 9th and 4th (and disagrees with the EO) that people with Bona Fide relations must be allowed to enter. They merely ruled that the 9th and 4th went too far in stopping those without bona fide relations, since the challenges only involved those with relations. So it is allowing, for now, the EO to stand regarding only those without relations.

This has nothing to do with the constitutionalality of the EO: that won't be decided until Oct 6th. It simply has to do with the accuracy of what the SC did and did not do.