Breaking: Trump travel ban going to Supreme Court!

a reply to: D8Tee

I know I'm splitting hairs here but I've been skimming the thread and it doesn't appear to me that anyone has pointed out that this does not mean the case is headed to the Supreme Court. I heard about this earlier today, and when I intially saw the thread title, I thought the Supreme Court had accepted the case, and thought "Damn that was fast." They haven't actually accepted the case yet, which they're not obligated to do. Although I think it's safe to say they will.

On the merit of the case, in my opinion the intent of the '65 law was to prevent discrimination against a specific person based on the parameters given. If it was meant to ban the US from preventing all persons from specific nations from entering, that would mean if we went to war with a country we would have to continue to admit travelers and immigrants from that country while we are at war with them. Obviously that would be absurd, and I doubt that was Congress's intent when they wrote the '65 law. Is anyone aware of any documentation from when the '65 law was drafted that might explain exactly what they were trying to do, since the way the law currently reads is obviously ambiguous since different people reading it take it to mean different things? SCOTUS may strike that law based simply on that.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Indigo5
His authority does not include violating the constitution of the United States.

The question is if the Executive Order violates the Constitution.

Not only the Constitution, but the law of the land as well. Our founding fathers meant for the constitution to be changeable and to be built on law - so (technically) forbidding women to vote is not against the Constitution (otherwise we would have been able to vote since the first election) but it IS against the law of the land.

AHem the "law of the land" IS the constitution Here I will link it.
Supremacy clause(the law of the land)

You are confused about the law of the land though. No higher law than constitution law.

a reply to: face23785

I know I'm splitting hairs here but I've been skimming the thread and it doesn't appear to me that anyone has pointed out that this does not mean the case is headed to the Supreme Court.

Correct, sorry about the misleading thread title.

On the merit of the case, in my opinion the intent of the '65 law was to prevent discrimination against a specific person based on the parameters given.

I agree with you, we'll see first if the court accepts the case and then how they rule. It's rather fuzzy imho.

Carter banned Iranians in 1979.
1979 WaPo Article

The appeals court decision held that the crackdown, ordered by President Carter on Nov. 10, was a legitimate exercise of the president's constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs without interference from the courts.

"...It is not the business of courts to pass judgement on the decisions of the president in the field of foreign policy. Judges are not expert in that field and they lack the information necessary for the formation of an opinion.

"The president on the other hand, has the opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, he has his confidential sources of information and his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials," the panel said.

Seems todays judges are political activists wearing robes, they don't sit in on National Security briefings, how can they be expected to know the full story? I watched the congressional hearings and saw Comey admit that sometimes there was no information to be had on the people being vetted, it simply would not have existed. Shave off your beard, spin a good yarn and you are good to go.

I do hope SCOTUS accepts this, and think there is a high likely hood of that happening.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

So you know more than the judge about constitutional law?
That's pretty presumptuous of you.
Trump said he was going to ban Muslims. Those words came out of his mouth. We don't want "them" in "our" country!. He said that.
That's what he tried to do.
That's never going to be allowed.
The supreme court justices are not going to go against the constitution just because they are conservative and just because trump thinks they should.
You've already seen that having the majority in the house and Senate has not given his crazy ideas any platform. They didn't approve his tax plan and they basically threw a dying health care bill at the Senate who will not approve it.
Everybody thought it would be so easy because he had a support system but the support is not guaranteed when he puts crazy up for a vote.

Muslims can still get in from any one of the other 175+ countries that are Not on the ban list.

You said "That's what he tried to do." When you said this, you mean he "tried ban all Muslims from entering", right?

So, I'm a little confused here... Are you saying that you believe that Trump believes that the only Muslims in the world are currently all located within the boundaries of that small handful of "nations" if you can call them that, on the ban list? Well, that, and the muslims currently in the US.

IF you agree that A) Trump is aware of all the other muslims in Europe, Canada, Aussie, Asia, etc., and that B) he has not attempted to ban immigration from every nation in the world with Muslim citizens, not even close, then... You cannot say that Trump tried to ban Muslims.

He tried to do a temporary ban from terrorist hotbeds for a few months until better vetting procedures could be put in place. Drama queens.

a reply to: D8Tee

I predict this will go 5-4 along party lines.

Then I predict 100 days from now, when the temporary ban expires, we'll be in the same place as now.

I say that because had the ban been put in place originally, it would have already expired. I haven't seen or heard of any more stringent vetting procedures put in place like was supposed to happen. Have you? What makes you think this ban will suddenly enable them to do so?

originally posted by: BestOf
It seems that President Trump intended for this case to be heard before the Supreme Court. I imagine he is eager to have his arguments heard before a stacked court able to set a federal precedent allowing the presidemt to ban any country's citizens at any time.

He already has that power. What this comes down to is basically, truth in advertising. Can an action be sold/spun as one thing (a Muslim ban) but written as another (a blanket travel ban) when what's being advertised is unconstitutional, even though the letter of the law says otherwise. The intent clearly goes against the constitution, but the law itself is more than just intent.

Trumps campaign comments being the basis of these lower court rulings rather than case law.

I wonder likewise if Ginsburgs frequent negative comments about Trump prior the election should be reason for her to recuse from this case. It sure looks like animus on her part.

It would seem height of hypocracy for her to cite animus in SCOTUS decisions regarding this matter.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

As UK mentioned, in 1965 there was an amendment to that decision.

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Emphasis added.

Link: Cornell.edu

But the ban isn't on any particular person. The ban is on countries.

That's the ban wording.

Animus (intent) and actual effect of the EO weighs more than wording.

Thus SCOTUS recently shooting down North Carolina's Voter law.

It's wording did not discriminate, but they ruled both the intent of the law and effect did.

Supreme Court deals blow to North Carolina over voting rights
www.cnbc.com...

originally posted by: Phoenix
Trumps campaign comments being the basis of these lower court rulings rather than case law.

I wonder likewise if Ginsburgs frequent negative comments about Trump prior the election should be reason for her to recuse from this case. It sure looks like animus on her part.

You do not understand the legal definition of "Animus".

SCOTUS justices can only recuse themselves.

It is ridiculous to expect Ginsberg to recuse herself on issues that might be part of a conservative agenda pressed by Trump.

Hell Clarence Thomas attends Right Wing Conferences and his wife has founded right wing organizations and PACs.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Indigo5
His authority does not include violating the constitution of the United States.

The question is if the Executive Order violates the Constitution.

Not only the Constitution, but the law of the land as well. Our founding fathers meant for the constitution to be changeable and to be built on law - so (technically) forbidding women to vote is not against the Constitution (otherwise we would have been able to vote since the first election) but it IS against the law of the land.

Agree, but a minor correction...Women got the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment, so it is part of the constitution.

originally posted by: [post=22305639]whywhynot

Cheap words blowing in the wind across a vacant field. The world knows the truth.

Reads like a poetic summary of court rulings describing the Ban thus far.

a reply to: Indigo5

Your posts,

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court took the rare step on Friday of expediting consideration of a major case, rapidly accelerating the schedule for reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.

www.breitbart.com...

I got a solution. declare matial law,and stop all immigration until it is recinded. no law or EO needed.

a reply to: UKTruth

thats a good sign. maybe they will finally stop legislating from the bench now.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: UKTruth

thats a good sign. maybe they will finally stop legislating from the bench now.

They are obviously speeding it up at the request of the Whitehouse... this could end up one of Trumps biggest wins and he's in a no lose situation. He already has egg on his face over the ban being overturned by politically motivated judges. If the Supreme Court rules in his favour it is going to humiliate those judges and Trump will be riding high. If they rule against him, meh, we already knew it was stopped by other judges.

a reply to: Indigo5

Thomas didn't call out partisans by name, Ginsburg did on several occasions specific to Trump

Yes if she has a shred of decency she'll recuse herself - otherwise major dose of hypocracy.

a reply to: UKTruth

Im tellin' 'ya...Trump knows what's what. He knows what needs to be done. The U.S. is not a company though, and you can't just fire a partisan leftwing federal judge to do what you KNOW needs to get done. It is frustrating as hell for Americans to put up with all this obfuscation and stupidity by the loonie left.

a reply to: queenofswords

The plan will be to have the ban upheld by SCOTUS and then announce that there is no way of properly vetting people from those countries. BOOM, EO making the ban permanent.