Supreme Court reinstates Trump's travel ban in part USA TODAY By Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez 26 Jun 17 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump's immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers only, blocking the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold. Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...-in-part/ar-BBDhdtC?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp ______ Level heads have prevailed. The politics of destruction by the Progressive Marxist Left has been slowed for a moment. "The Trump administration is free to conduct its global review to determine whether foreign governments provide sufficient information about foreign nationals applying for entry to the U.S., it’s free for now to impose its new refugee caps, it’s free to temporarily pause entry from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia, and it’s free to pause refugee entry (unless refugees and applicants for entry have a “bona fide” U.S. relationship.) That’s a win for Trump". It is not the court’s constitutional duty to micro-manage the president. Only to determine the constitutionality of a law or action.
So does this mean the 90 day clock Is started, for them to figure out what is going on? What have they been doing for the past 155+ days?
I'm pleased, this makes sense: Indeed, and this was pointed out repeatedly, the President has practically complete discretion on immigration, courts should not be second guessing the judgement of a president (even if the critical lefties are certain he's an idiot). It does, but evaluating the adequacy of that "connection" will be an issue, what is without question is that those with no connection can be barred. So the core issue is about those ties to the US, relatives, property, business, maybe studies... The injunctions were typical lefty tactic, overreacting, demanding more without a sensible basis. So we're in for a series of cases trying to establish exactly what constitutes a "bona fide relationship" to the US. There's an element of subjectivity, some will demand more than just an application for a visa.
Would seem to me that the other executive order has expired and he should rewrite a new one, banning all from those countries, with some type of administrative procedure for those with a "bona fide" connection to the US to apply for an exception. Make it for 180 days this time.
That won't happen. If they have had 150 day to figure thins out. And they have not evens started. Then it has always been nothing more then to ban Muslims. And imagine the outrage if the Supreme Court allows the banning of a entire Religion for the acts of a minority if them.
Yeah, that wouldn't make sense. I would instead do it based upon the content of the written doctrine in the Koran. "But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripolis ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, Americas two foremost envoys were informed that it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pirates-13013.html
The ban was never banning all Muslims. That is a lie. The nations listed are all failed states, comprised of mostly Muslims. Just because everyone in a dangerous country is Muslim, doesn't mean the ban affects all Muslims. Zero Asian Muslim nations were banned. Just sayin...
Another big win for Trump - a big 9 to zero win in the SCOTUS. And what a rebuke to all the scofflaw appeals court and district court judges who disgraced themselves through their lawless conduct on the bench. They should all be impeached.
Pretty much as it should be. The action was carried out in accordance with law passed by Congress used in the past without much hoopla. As I indicated early on, the prick and questionable part was there not being notice and so many people getting stuck in transit who had already been approved to enter. He should appoint me Justice to replace Kennedy I'm telling you.
From the link: The court's action was written without an author, but with a partial dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who would have allowed the ban to apply to all travelers. "The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States," the court said. On the other hand, it said the ban "may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." We've had at least two terrorist attacks by people with "creditable claims" of relationships with US citizens. It's easy for operatives to develop these.
ANY Islam that follows the writings of the Koran and Hadith is political. The Islamic Caliphates as they existed from 632 until the 1920s and now again for the last few years, applying Islamic doctrine as law IS THE RULE under Islamic doctrine. Its 90 year absence was the exception. There is Islam and there is apolitical Islam.
Unfortunately it is the philosophy of the left half of judges. "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up" Thurgood Marshall And they use there word salad to try to pretend they are following the Constitution. A violation of the Establishment clause????? What tortured and twisted interpretation they had to use to come up with that one.
Agreed, that's why I disagreed with the term "political Islam". Islamic doctrine is inherently political.
Judges who defy the law are very dangerous. I tend to cut Marshall some slack since he was responding to the racist legacy of the modern DP - especially the scofflaw President - Woodrow Wilson.
