Travel ban seems likely to survive Supreme Court’s review

[dukkha]

he Supreme Court has taken the unusual step to immediately release audio of oral arguments in the challenge of the Trump administration's travel ban.

It has been nearly 15 months since President Donald Trump first issued an order that banned travel to the United States by nationals of seven countries, all of which have overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

After lower courts blocked the government from enforcing both the original January 2017 order and a revised order that followed it in March 2017, Trump issued a new order last September.

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of the September 2017 order, in one of the most anticipated sessions in recent memory.

After over an hour of debate, a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/ar...courts-review/ (SCOTUS blog)

[canceled.2021.1]

Of course anything can happen. But the arguments for the plaintiff were weak trying to utilize Trumps campaign rhetoric.

Of course what Trump is doing is Constitutional. But anything can happen

[dukkha]

what gets me a District courts ruling on these actions-they should just kick it upstairs

[archives]

what gets me a District courts ruling on these actions-they should just kick it upstairs

They can, Certiorari before judgment, but they have to show a good reason, must be this one wasn't prioritized

If the case turned out the way you didn't like would you be saying the same?

[archives]

he Supreme Court has taken the unusual step to immediately release audio of oral arguments in the challenge of the Trump administration's travel ban.

It has been nearly 15 months since President Donald Trump first issued an order that banned travel to the United States by nationals of seven countries, all of which have overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

After lower courts blocked the government from enforcing both the original January 2017 order and a revised order that followed it in March 2017, Trump issued a new order last September.

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of the September 2017 order, in one of the most anticipated sessions in recent memory.

After over an hour of debate, a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/ar...courts-review/ (SCOTUS blog)

Why would that surprising given the make up of the Court?

[Cancel 2018.2]

Well that would be another prediction I got right.

[Cancel 2018.2]

Why would that surprising given the make up of the Court?

Given that it looks solid.

Do you actually read anything other than titles?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Congress doesn't have a right to pass a law giving the president unlimited arbitrary control over all immigration. There is zero merit for Trump's decision besides bigotry.

Presumably an antisemitic president would be allowed to bar entry from all Jews and Israel too, based on nothing more than his feely feels. This was not a well vetted proposal, it was something Stephen Miller shat out overnight in the first days of the administration as an explicit fulfillment of Trump's Muslim ban campaign promise. If the supreme court rules in favor of arbitrarily allowing the president to deny entry to people for no other reason than his well known bigotry towards people of their ethnicity, it will be the worst decision since Korematsu v. United States. Another case where the supreme court gave carte blanche to the president to arbitrarily detain people based solely on his bigotry towards their ethnicity.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Given that it looks solid.

Do you actually read anything other than titles?

Gorsuch should recuse himself, he was appointed by Trump specifically to support this Muslim ban and he is not an unbiased actor.

[Cancel 2018.2]

You're so wrong. Trump can show a national security interest.

I wonder why you loser libs didn't have a problem with Obama's travel bans. Hypocrites.

[dukkha]

Gorsuch should recuse himself, he was appointed by Trump specifically to support this Muslim ban and he is not an unbiased actor.

it's not a Muslim ban. North Korea and Venezuela is in and Saudi Arabia is not.

what does Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen all have in common?
They are failed or weak central government states whereby vetting record is almost impossible to verify

[FUCK THE POLICE]

it's not a Muslim ban. North Korea and Venezuela is in and Saudi Arabia is not.

what does Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen all have in common?
They are failed or weak central government states whereby vetting record is almost impossible to verify

Stephen Miller shat it out overnight, he wanted a Muslim ban that he could put a fig leaf over and say wasn't a Muslim ban. Literally no one mentioned any problems with "vetting" before the Muslim ban was put into place, no one ever had any problems with that, that's not what Trump came into office promising. It's only something that emerged as an ex post facto argument by bigoted people to justify the most bigoted and arbitrary executive order ever signed in American history by the most bigoted and racist person to ever live, supported by all the most bigoted and racist people in the US.

[dukkha]

They can, Certiorari before judgment, but they have to show a good reason, must be this one wasn't prioritized

If the case turned out the way you didn't like would you be saying the same?

that doesn't apply to District courts..the problem is District courts should not be ruling on national interests.

I'm not a lawyer and am not sure why they keep getting cases of national interest, ( court shopping?)
but they are ill equipped to hear thse.

[Superfreak]

Congress doesn't have a right to pass a law giving the president unlimited arbitrary control over all immigration. There is zero merit for Trump's decision besides bigotry.

Presumably an antisemitic president would be allowed to bar entry from all Jews and Israel too, based on nothing more than his feely feels. This was not a well vetted proposal, it was something Stephen Miller shat out overnight in the first days of the administration as an explicit fulfillment of Trump's Muslim ban campaign promise. If the supreme court rules in favor of arbitrarily allowing the president to deny entry to people for no other reason than his well known bigotry towards people of their ethnicity, it will be the worst decision since Korematsu v. United States. Another case where the supreme court gave carte blanche to the president to arbitrarily detain people based solely on his bigotry towards their ethnicity.

1) Yes, Congress does have that ability
2) Yes, it can be necessary given the speed with which these decisions might need to be made. Now, that doesn't mean that every time a President uses this authority that it is 'right', but they absolutely need that ability.

3) If he truly were making this about Muslims... why not ban travel from Indonesia, India and Pakistan? The six banned have about 10% of the worlds Muslim population (at most). Indonesia has more than that on its own.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You're so wrong. Trump can show a national security interest.

I wonder why you loser libs didn't have a problem with Obama's travel bans. Hypocrites.

Trump is doing it for racism and arbitrarily claiming national security interest where there is none. He is insane, and doesn't even past the rationality test because of his dementia. Only an insane person could support this order, it is contrary to all reason, justice, and law, and everyone who supports it should be immediately disbarred and impeached.