Talk Elections

More coming

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/26/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trump-appeals-of-rulings-blocking-travel-ban-on-6-muslim-majority-nations.html (https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/06/26/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trump-appeals-of-rulings-blocking-travel-ban-on-6-muslim-majority-nations.html)

I was already writing up a post for another thread, so I'll just post what I had here:

SCOTUS just adjourned for the summer and did a few things regarding the travel ban.

First, they set the case to be heard in October.

Next, they gave both sides an additional question to answer: "In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following questions: Whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017."

Finally, on the preliminary matters they (per curiam, so without dissent) affirmed the preliminary injunction, but only part of it. The part of the injunctions dealing with the SPECIFIC PLAINTIFFS or people similarly situated were upheld. The part of the injunction dealing with everyone else was not. So the ban is still not in effect for people with connections to the United States, such as people with relatives in the US or the students trying to attend a US university. The injunctions were too broad when they stopped the ENTIRE ban, including for people with no connections to the United States. For those people, the ban is back.

Prevents banning folks that have familial connections in the United States, have been admitted to school in the United States, have accepted a job, or are coming for business. Means only a small minority of folks will be banned.

Yeah, I think people on the left are over-reacting a bit to this decision. Still, Trumps impending tweet gloating about his "partial victory" is making my stomach feel queasy. 

Apparently this decision was 6 to 3, meaning there was a liberal justice who supported this move.

All nine justices supported at least partial reinstatement. The three dissenters wanted full reinstatement.

Ahh, I misunderstood.

So probably Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas?

Great news for the American people.

Yes, I believe so.

I mean, this decision makes sense. The Court hates injunctions. They don't like to flex their power and start banning things; its only an option after damages or other remedies are unavailable. The Court DOUBLE HATES preliminary injunctions. They really really don't want to ban people or the government from doing something without a full case on the matter. So when they are allowed, those need to be limited and narrowly tailored for the specific circumstance...which the injunctions really weren't.

I don't think that this ruling should lead to the rejoicing by Trump's people that I'm seeing; its what logically should have followed from the Court's known principles.

While maybe not ideal, this is probably fair enough.

The opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of those "banned" had no connection to the US. Putative refugee status won't be enough either. Read the actual opinion. This is a devastating blow to the 4th and 9th Circuits and liberals everywhere.

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

Looks like Roberts might pull a Kennedy eventually.

Yes clearly I'm devastated that a partial part of the ban that doesn't effect regular muslims wanting to live here will be in place until the October hearing

A Muslim wanting to live here isn't enough. Read the opinion.

Any connection to the US must be prexisting, long lasting and documented.

The court started here:

"An unadmitted and nonresident alien ... has no constitutional right of entry to this country."

Then the court clarified that the injunctions the 9th and 4th crafted were far too broad. It outlined the very limited circumstances to which injunctions would still stand.

"The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relation- ship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The stu- dents from the designated countries who have been admit- ted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American com- pany or a lecturer invited to address an American audi- ence. 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."

It says nothing about length of time.

It literally says a Job Offer or speaking engagement is enough.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/26/statement-president-donald-j-trump

Most 'regular Muslims' (like most regular Hindus, most regular Buddhists and most regular Christians for that matter) don't have any connections to the US. If someone is applying for a work visa or a student visa or they have relatives in the US then the government will have access to at least some background information to see if they're dodgy characters. For others the US government may not have access to any such information and letting people through from terrorist infested barbarian hell holes without any chance to do a background check isn't a smart idea.

At the moment we have huge numbers of unvetted immigrants pouring into Europe from various ... holes and I have to say most of the people coming in ain't skilled workers and they ain't scholars either.

Long-lasting as in preexisiting documented family ties. Bona-fide as in real job and accepted university students, Not a sham set up by liberal groups. Guess who bears the burden of proof? Even the most liberal fake news sites are pointing out that the ban is in effect for "most situations." The situations noted by the court are the EXCEPTIONS not the rule.

Oh, Guess I can put you on ignore then.

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

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?

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.

#MASA

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.

Yep.

Winning

And they're correct.

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.

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?

He's white.  He'll be fine.

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

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........

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...

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

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.

Hope the justices will do their constitutional duty

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.

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?

Not too bad, I guess.

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.

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.

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

Where did you find that crack you have been smoking?

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.

The Court will hear a moot case if the injury is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." I assume the defendants will argue that the ban will not be a 90 day one-time-only affair and that the issue could come up again under the same or a different administration and should be heard for that reason. Its the same reason the Court hears cases from pregnant women long after the pregnancy that set off the case ended.

Does that mean that the Court would have to rule on what exactly would and would not constitute a 'Muslim ban'  in the future? How would you define the parameters of such a thing?

Thats not really how that works