Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

 

no surprise really. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

Edited June 26, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

25 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

no surprise really. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

I was thinking about this last night wondering how the court would rule on this. According to the law it would be upheld but as you know with some of these justices they do not look at the actual law but emotions instead.  Needless to say I am pleasantly surprised.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

6 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I was thinking about this last night wondering how the court would rule on this. According to the law it would be upheld but as you know with some of these justices they do not look at the actual law but emotions instead.  Needless to say I am pleasantly surprised.

You mean it was judged based on party lines?

The supreme Court rarely makes judgement against conservative values these days.

 

  

 

[cyclone27 710]

Great News!!!!! ❤️

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, Keith & Arileidi said:

You mean it was judged based on party lines?

The supreme Court rarely makes judgement against conservative values these days.

 

You have to admit that Ginsberg and Sotamayor will never go for anything that goes against the Liberal views. Gorsuch has proven to be a wild card and not a diehard Conservative at all.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You have to admit that Ginsberg and Sotamayor will never go for anything that goes against the Liberal views. Gorsuch has proven to be a wild card and not a diehard Conservative at all.

Yes I will admit that there are two extremely liberal judges. 

 

It's too soon to tell if Gorsuch is a wild card. 

We will see how he performs on non-politically charged cases.  

 

[yuna628 9,680]

Three points here: Firstly, they did strike down the administration's assertion that their actions cannot be reviewed in a court of law. Therefore it does not mean that it cannot be challenged in lower courts, or that any new attempts cannot be challenged either. What the court is saying is that no one is above the law, even with broad powers given, and has the right to judicial review. 

 

Secondly, they seem to use a rational test, which means it's one that's nearly impossible to fail. In other words, it's one that means even if a law has some animus to it or underlying discriminatory nature, as long as there is another nature that is non-discriminatory it passes the test. Assertions made in the very first paragraphs of the ruling I do not agree with, and as I've seen noted in several current discussions from libertarians about this right now, are factually inaccurate claims. The government was not honest in those claims and the court did not bother to fact check it. Kennedy actually gives quite a strong warning/rebuke to the administration not to get too runaway with 'broad powers' in spite of the Constitution.

 

Lastly, they finally say sorry about that whole Korematsu thing..

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Yes I will admit that there are two extremely liberal judges. 

 

It's too soon to tell if Gorsuch is a wild card. 

We will see how he performs on non-politically charged cases.  

 

He has already shown that he is a wildcard by going against the administration in a couple cases.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Three points here: Firstly, they did strike down the administration's assertion that their actions cannot be reviewed in a court of law. Therefore it does not mean that it cannot be challenged in lower courts, or that any new attempts cannot be challenged either. What the court is saying is that no one is above the law, even with broad powers given, and has the right to judicial review. 

 

Secondly, they seem to use a rational test, which means it's one that's nearly impossible to fail. In other words, it's one that means even if a law has some animus to it or underlying discriminatory nature, as long as there is another nature that is non-discriminatory it passes the test. Assertions made in the very first paragraphs of the ruling I do not agree with, and as I've seen noted in several current discussions from libertarians about this right now, are factually inaccurate claims. The government was not honest in those claims and the court did not bother to fact check it. Kennedy actually gives quite a strong warning/rebuke to the administration not to get too runaway with 'broad powers' in spite of the Constitution.

 

Lastly, they finally say sorry about that whole Korematsu thing..

 

 

No one here questioned wither anyone can hold the administration accountable at all. But what we were saying is that this WHOLE COURT CASE was brought forward because it was supposedly Racist and Xenophobic thus it should not be implemented at all. We have on here argued all along that this Travel Ban was going along with the rule of law and it should be upheld.

 

I am in the middle of some serious multi-tasking so I will read the ruling during my lunch break.

[yuna628 9,680]

6 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

No one here questioned wither anyone can hold the administration accountable at all. But what we were saying is that this WHOLE COURT CASE was brought forward because it was supposedly Racist and Xenophobic thus it should not be implemented at all. We have on here argued all along that this Travel Ban was going along with the rule of law and it should be upheld.

 

I am in the middle of some serious multi-tasking so I will read the ruling during my lunch break.

The administration was the one questioning it. That was in fact one of their court talking points. That the administration's actions cannot be reviewed by the judicial branch. Quite a crazy notion. I do think that had it been the first or second version of the ban (remember we're on version three) the court may not have ruled the same way. But the whole reason we're on version three, is due to judicial review.. which is a good thing.

Edited June 26, 2018 by yuna628

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

The administration was the one questioning it. That was in fact one of their court talking points. That the administration's actions cannot be reviewed by the judicial branch. Quite a crazy notion. I do think that had it been the first or second version of the ban (remember we're on version three) the court may not have ruled the same way.

I completely agree with this especially with the 1st Travel Ban it would have been shot down hard. But since it has been revised and refined it can not be labeled a "Muslim Ban"  per say and thus it was upheld.

 

Edit. What is so funny is watching Aljazeera live and their heads are exploding all over this because they fought so hard against..... Yes, I watch Aljazeera live at work on youtube.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Cyberfx1024

[yuna628 9,680]

13 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I completely agree with this especially with the 1st Travel Ban it would have been shot down hard. But since it has been revised and refined it can not be labeled a "Muslim Ban"  per say and thus it was upheld.

 

Edit. What is so funny is watching Aljazeera live and their heads are exploding all over this because they fought so hard against..... Yes, I watch Aljazeera live at work on youtube.

I'm too busy to watch the pundits screams on the news today... got biometrics tomorrow and then packing for our vacation. And I'm a little burnt out.. hubby came home from work yesterday despondent. One of his coworkers is quite a bigot (and also believes all gun owners feeling the same way will rise up and kill any americans that don't agree with his ideas...). It was awkward, just plain wrong for this person to start rambling on like that almost as if they were looking for a fight. He's made horrible comments about LGBT and immigrants to coworkers on off-campus settings before. This was basically making comments right to my husband's face on-campus, and being an immigrant himself it's hard for him to process without feeling utterly sad. The dude is one of those types that would not be a surprise that if fired one day they come back in and pop some off.

Edited June 26, 2018 by yuna628

[Dashinka 24,597]

26 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

The administration was the one questioning it. That was in fact one of their court talking points. That the administration's actions cannot be reviewed by the judicial branch. Quite a crazy notion. I do think that had it been the first or second version of the ban (remember we're on version three) the court may not have ruled the same way. But the whole reason we're on version three, is due to judicial review.. which is a good thing.

I am not sure that anyone questioned whether any EO can be challenged on constitutional grounds.  We have certainly seen EOs struck down for that, but this one was obviously constitutional when it was challenged for political reasons that it looks more like the courts were reviewing executive branch processes and procedures.  I am not sure if the ruling now gives the courts access to the war rooms of the executive branch.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

no surprise really. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

Certainly not surprising after Gorsuch filled the 1+ year old vacant seat. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

just caught me a short work nap. All this winning has me soo tired