It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCOTUS Upholds Stay on Trump Travel Ban

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
No text news yet, just heard it on the radio. The Supreme Court of the United States will keep the stay on the ban and will hear the case when it returns from it's summer recess.

ETA: Now hearing that the travel ban will be allowed to be partially enforced as the case moves forward. No idea what that means yet.
edit on 6/26/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I am interested in seeing how this case is resolved.

If it is a loss for the trump admin, I think it will hurt liberals the most.

This is because it will force trumps hand to appoint a far more right leaning person to the court with his next appointment.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." - Amy Howe


Below is the SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - it's happening right now and you can read about it in real-time.

(that is where that quote above is from - literally just now)

www.scotusblog.com...


edit on 26-6-2017 by Sublimecraft because: amended comment


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


In the interim, the Presidents travel ban will remain in effect! All court standing against the travel ban are null and void until the Fall session when it is heard in the SCOTUS.


There are a few exceptions such as those who have family members here etc etc....


For the time being, it is a win for Trump!

This is what Judge Napolitano is saying at the moment.....

edit on 26-6-2017 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



Ahhh, the travel ban, the one trump wanted to put into affect 5 months ago. For those of you who think this is a good thing. The TEMPORARY travel ban if implemented back when trump wanted it to be originally would have already been lifted. The travel ban was supposed to be for 3 months, According to trump.


So, ask yourself this, this temporary ban would have already been lifted by now, if trump would have had his way months ago. What did the trump administration accomplish the past few months, with NO TRAVEL ban, that they would have accomplished with a travel ban??? ZERO. They have not accomplished anything, and a travel ban would have prevented ZERO terrorist attacks.


Also I love that 90 day ISIS plan that trump promised. He said he would shut them down in less than 90 days. How many times has ISIS struck since he took office??? Yeah, and its been over 90 days.







posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

No. The travel has not been able to go into effect at all. Now it can go into partial effect, if you have legitimate connections to the US, family, job, school, it won't effect you. If you have no connection to the US you have to wait 90 days for entry from those select countries, applied unilaterally regardless of religion.


+3 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

The Supreme Court said Monday that most of President Trump’s travel ban executive order can go into effect, delivering the first major victory to the new administration on perhaps his most controversial policy to date.

Justices said the lower court rulings that blocked Mr. Trump’s policy were far too broad, and said the president can begin to enforce his ban against foreigners who don’t already have some ties to the U.S.

That means the president can begin denying visas to visitors from six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who don’t already have family in the U.S., or some other prior connection such as participation in an education program. Mr. Trump is also free to halt refugee admissions worldwide, with the same exception for people who already have a connection to the U.S.

Washington Times



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have all stated that they would've allowed the entire ban to go into effect.

It's interesting watching the stories develop about this. Some of the MSM are putting articles online that focus on the angle that SCOTUS isn't allowing the entire ban to go into effect. Others are making it sound like there's just no information available yet.

One can only wonder if they're just that slow at understanding what SCOTUS has said, or if they're being intentional with trying to spin it. Either seems likely to me.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Kali74



Ahhh, the travel ban, the one trump wanted to put into affect 5 months ago. For those of you who think this is a good thing. The TEMPORARY travel ban if implemented back when trump wanted it to be originally would have already been lifted. The travel ban was supposed to be for 3 months, According to trump.


So, ask yourself this, this temporary ban would have already been lifted by now, if trump would have had his way months ago. What did the trump administration accomplish the past few months, with NO TRAVEL ban, that they would have accomplished with a travel ban??? ZERO. They have not accomplished anything, and a travel ban would have prevented ZERO terrorist attacks.


Also I love that 90 day ISIS plan that trump promised. He said he would shut them down in less than 90 days. How many times has ISIS struck since he took office??? Yeah, and its been over 90 days.






My concern was never rather or not the ban would have been effective.

It was that activists courts were clearly blocking trump from using authority that was given to him in the constitution.

And how are you so sure no radicals came in that would have been stopped by this ban?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kurthall

Agreed. The 90 days was supposed to be a review of and if necessary a revamp of our vetting process. There's no reason that any issues should not have been resolved since it's been well over 90 days.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
considering that they claim that this ban is only temporary, just till they can put policies into place the better assess the danger any one immigrant might pose to the country...
you'd think that by the time they get a ruling on this... they would have those policies in place and it wouldn't be needed...



they also ruled on at least on case that has been discussed on ATS previously..
the one about the religious school getting taxpayer funds to revamp it's playground...
think they sided on the side of the school, but I could be wrong..

for anyone interested, SCOTUSblog should be posting some commentaries on the rulings in a little while, maybe tommorrow but probably today.

www.scotusblog.com...

at the moment they are giving live updates as they occur.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

How do you still not understand how the ban violated the Establishment Clause? The only thing ever needed to allow the ban to go into effect was remove the priority for Christian refugees.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
This is beautifully brilliant! Thank you for that link!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Finally something proactive is being done about the radical Islamist issues.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kurthall

Agreed. The 90 days was supposed to be a review of and if necessary a revamp of our vetting process. There's no reason that any issues should not have been resolved since it's been well over 90 days.


That's because there never was any real intention of letting the ban expire. Ever.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

How do you still not understand how the ban violated the Establishment Clause? The only thing ever needed to allow the ban to go into effect was remove the priority for Christian refugees.


Apparently, the supreme court disagrees with You.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
So did I read something entirely different... it was not about stopping terror attacks.. i guess if it makes you feel better you can think of it that way.

It was meant to give time to asses the vetting process and make changes if needed, and the 6 countries named have some pretty strong arguments for wanting to do us Harm.

It is not a win for anyone at this point (we really need to stop thinking in such a short sided manner, the only "win" we the people should care about is when they do the right thing by we the people of the United States) its a we will review it in the fall.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Thanks - I'll get back to reading it in a moment, but I always go to the last page first, to read the recommendations etc as it usually has some solid points......




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

How do you figure? They took religion out of it all together, it is now only effecting foreign nationals with no ties to the US.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join