SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal

[Santander]

#MASA

[EnglishPete]

Since the original travel ban only lasted 90 days, where do they get the authority to keep this one section active until October? Might we see this partial ban enforced until they decide the case next year only to then have the entire ban last 90 days from then until it expires if it is upheld?

It was suspended very quickly so presumably the argument would be that the clock on the 90 days stopped when the suspension was ordered and started again today.

[Thomas Jackson]

Since the original travel ban only lasted 90 days, where do they get the authority to keep this one section active until October? Might we see this partial ban enforced until they decide the case next year only to then have the entire ban last 90 days from then until it expires if it is upheld?

It was rewritten to go into effect 72 hours after being upheld by the courts.

[Thomas Jackson]

Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim- ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Its almost as if the Supreme Court thinks that many of the "nonprofit groups" are SJW political activist groups masquerading as charities and that they are so dishonest and prone to cheating that it has to specifically spell out that they're not allowed to cheat.

Yep.

[TheSaint250]

Winning

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim- ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Its almost as if the Supreme Court thinks that many of the "nonprofit groups" are SJW political activist groups masquerading as charities and that they are so dishonest and prone to cheating that it has to specifically spell out that they're not allowed to cheat.

Yep.

And they're correct.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Since the original travel ban only lasted 90 days, where do they get the authority to keep this one section active until October? Might we see this partial ban enforced until they decide the case next year only to then have the entire ban last 90 days from then until it expires if it is upheld?

It was rewritten to go into effect 72 hours after being upheld by the courts.

But let's be honest, the ban will be effectively enforced until SCOTUS says it' cant.  No one from those countries is coming in after 90 days without a damn good reason.

[Crumpets]

It was suspended very quickly so presumably the argument would be that the clock on the 90 days stopped when the suspension was ordered and started again today.

It was rewritten to go into effect 72 hours after being upheld by the courts.

That makes sense, but is it still set to expire at some pre-decided date? 90 days from 72 hours from now is late September. So we might get this half-assed version lasting until then, followed by... return to status quo? And if the ban is upheld when the case is eventually held, then what? Another 90 days with the full ban lasting for a few months in 2018?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So a half a**ed reinstatement of the banned that only covers people who have no ties in this country? Well that's the closest thing to a "win" Trump has gotten

...

I hope you get randomly searched by TSA next time you go to the airport and it causes you to miss your flight

He's white.  He'll be fine.

[Santander]

So a half a**ed reinstatement of the banned that only covers people who have no ties in this country? Well that's the closest thing to a "win" Trump has gotten

...

I hope you get randomly searched by TSA next time you go to the airport and it causes you to miss your flight

He's white.  He'll be fine.

As if missing a flight because of security delays is really so terrible to begin with, lol.

[Matty]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

The Nutter Ninth doesn't blink at eye in such matters........

[MasterJedi]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

[TheSaint250]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when if the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when if the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

Do you really think there is a chance that Kennedy and Roberts will side with Trump here?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

We already pretty much know what the final outcome is going to be. 6-3 against Trump. Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas gave it away with their "full reinstatement" comments. Not too much of a nail biter, plus the unanimous decision is not unusual.

[TheSaint250]

Hope the justices will do their constitutional duty

[EnglishPete]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

What ruling? The cases being brought were objecting to the allegedly discriminatory nature of the 90 day six country part of the executive order. The 90 days will be up by the time the Court comes back in October. SCOTUS doesn't hear moot cases. The government lawyers will say this case is moot, SCOTUS will agree, that will be it.

Today's ruling is the only ruling there will be on this apart from the decision to dismiss the case as moot in October.

[EnglishPete]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when if the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

Do you really think there is a chance that Kennedy and Roberts will side with Trump here?

You mean when his lawyers say 'you don't need to hear this case anymore as the 90 days are up'? You think they won't agree with that? Why not?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not too bad, I guess.

[EnglishPete]

Of course the 120 day freeze on refugees and the limiting of refugee numbers to 50,000 in 2017 parts of the executive order will still be in force in October.

Since they are separate from the 90 day part that people apparently find the most objectionable and since the cases being dealt with by Scotus relate to the allegedly discriminatory nature of that part then those cases being moot by the time the Court comes back there is no reason for Scotus to offer any further ruling on any part of the order. It was partially reinstated today and that will likely be their last ruling on this particular executive order.

[krazen1211]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

Well, yes. The entire legal case here boils down to 'Trump doesn't get to be President' or some blah like that, and of course the Supreme Court does not particularly want to be in the business of nullifying Article II merely because some folks are whining about losing the 2016 election.

[Thomas Jackson]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when if the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

Do you really think there is a chance that Kennedy and Roberts will side with Trump here?

Actually, yes. If they weren't, they'd leave the entire injunction in place or would have rejected the case.

[Thomas Jackson]

We already pretty much know what the final outcome is going to be. 6-3 against Trump. Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas gave it away with their "full reinstatement" comments. Not too much of a nail biter, plus the unanimous decision is not unusual.

Where did you find that crack you have been smoking?

[krazen1211]

Actually, yes. If they weren't, they'd leave the entire injunction in place or would have rejected the case.

There was no circuit split here. It would be really easy for the Justices to not take the case if they didn't want to.