Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2018, 03:41:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
| | |-+  SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal  (Read 1466 times)
Former GM 1184AZ
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,267


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 26, 2017, 09:46:42 am »

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
Logged
Dereich
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,356


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2017, 09:50:37 am »

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.
Logged

00:09   Wulfric   Trump has seemed to have a lot of compassion for the poor at times

smilo           Atlas is not a place for opinions
smilo           Atlas is a place for satire

Early reports of [adjective] turnout in [location] suggest [noun] for [party/candidate]
Gass3268
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,057
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2017, 09:53:40 am »

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.
Logged

Endorsements
Florida-Governor: Andrew Gillum
Illinois-Governor: Not Scum Rauner
Maryland-Governor: Ben Jealous
Michigan-Governor: Gretchen Whitmer
Minnesota-Governor: Tim Walz
Ohio-Governor: Richard Cordray
Wisconsin-Governor: Tony Evers
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,697


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2017, 10:00:00 am »

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. 
Logged
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,697


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2017, 10:08:57 am »

Apparently this decision was 6 to 3, meaning there was a liberal justice who supported this move.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,379
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: 4.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2017, 10:10:57 am »

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.
Logged
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,697


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2017, 10:12:21 am »

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.
Logged
Come on!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,430
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2017, 10:13:25 am »

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.

So probably Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas?
Logged

krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2017, 10:14:48 am »

Great news for the American people.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,379
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: 4.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2017, 10:14:54 am »

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.

So probably Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas?

Yes, I believe so.
Logged
Dereich
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,356


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2017, 10:18:57 am »

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.
Logged

00:09   Wulfric   Trump has seemed to have a lot of compassion for the poor at times

smilo           Atlas is not a place for opinions
smilo           Atlas is a place for satire

Early reports of [adjective] turnout in [location] suggest [noun] for [party/candidate]
Fmr. Rep. Illiniwek
Governor Illiniwek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,105


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2017, 10:23:19 am »

While maybe not ideal, this is probably fair enough.
Logged
Thomas Jackson
ghostmonkey
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 709


Political Matrix
E: 8.77, S: 8.79

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 11:06:41 am »

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.

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.
Logged

Ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei.

Hindsight is 2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,053
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2017, 11:08:03 am »

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
Logged

Election days come and go. But the struggle of the people to create a government which represents all of us and not just the one percent-a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial, and environmental justice-that struggle continues.-Bernie Sanders
Come on!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,430
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2017, 11:12:03 am »

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.

So probably Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas?

Yes, I believe so.

Looks like Roberts might pull a Kennedy eventually.
Logged

Hindsight is 2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,053
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2017, 11:16:07 am »

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

...
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
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:30:07 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged

Election days come and go. But the struggle of the people to create a government which represents all of us and not just the one percent-a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial, and environmental justice-that struggle continues.-Bernie Sanders
Thomas Jackson
ghostmonkey
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 709


Political Matrix
E: 8.77, S: 8.79

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2017, 11:26:39 am »

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

...
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."
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:30:32 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged

Ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei.

superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,697


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2017, 11:30:32 am »

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

...
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



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




It says nothing about length of time.

It literally says a Job Offer or speaking engagement is enough.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:30:50 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged
Good Grumps With A Gun
GM3PRP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,902
Russian Federation
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2017, 11:34:51 am »

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

Can we please, please not allow Grumps' staggering stupidity to derail another thread?





Family Values

EnglishPete
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,606


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2017, 11:39:21 am »

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

...
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
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.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 05:01:16 am by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged

Thomas Jackson
ghostmonkey
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 709


Political Matrix
E: 8.77, S: 8.79

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2017, 11:40:01 am »

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

...
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



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




It says nothing about length of time.

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

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.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:31:09 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged

Ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei.

superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,697


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2017, 11:42:12 am »

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

...
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



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




It says nothing about length of time.

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

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.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:31:25 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,996
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2017, 11:42:54 am »

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
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 01:31:37 pm by Senator PiT, PPT »Logged

#abolishice
#m4a
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.87

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2017, 11:44:42 am »

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?
Logged

EnglishPete
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,606


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2017, 11:45:43 am »

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.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines