SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal

[Thomas Jackson]

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.

[Thomas Jackson]

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."

[Thomas Jackson]

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.

[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.

[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?