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: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
twitter is starting to heat up....





posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


You should adjust your thread title.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens


There are laws already on the books deciding the President's ability in these matters, this was a lost cause from day one.

mg



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


No doubt Twitter is heating up! Keep an eye on the Legacy Media and watch how they fan the flames for Soros and his minions for the July 2nd day of rage!!!!




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Looks like an equitable decision to me. As I read it, the order strikes down the stays (meaning the travel ban is in full effect), with the exception of foreign nationals who have a bone fide connection to the US... that relationship being familial or professional (school attendance, lecturing, or employment).

The only concern I have is that, in today's political climate, there are those organizations that would advertise to employ terrorists to get them into the US because... TRUMP! The decision actually mentions this and states such are not included in the exclusions. The other side of that coin is that the CBP and ICE will have to make decisions on whether or not such relationships are bona fide based on the Supreme Court ruling. In effect, the Supreme Court told the Administration they have to allow for those claiming to have a legitimate reason for visiting. I assume this will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Overall, I think it's a win for Trump and a win for the US.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Christians should be a priority since they are the ones being butchered.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
SCOTUS Opinion


Am I correct in understanding that this is a 9-0 decision, and that the partial dissent was from three (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) who would have allowed the ban in its entirety?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I read it was a 7-2 decision. Sotomayor was one of the dissenters. I couldn't find out who the other one was, except it wasn't Kagan.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

You sure that wasn't for the Trinity day care case? That one was 7-2. This decision was issued Per Curiam, which as I understand it, usually means as the Court acting unanimously and as a whole.

Either way, its a clear decision and a huge win for Trump.
edit on 26-6-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Amazing that some can actually claim some sort of loss of Trump when the Supreme Court just handed him a win and embarrassed the liberal judges below them.

Even CNN are reporting it as a success for Trump. Kind of funny to remember the 'legal experts' here on ATS pretending the lower court rulings were not politically motivated.



#winning


edit on 26/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

I think you are referring to the Trinity Church Case.

mg



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Deciding to hear a case isn't the same as deciding a case.

To hear a case, only four Justices need to agree to grant the petition for certiorari. When the government filed it's petition, it included a request for a stay on the lower courts' orders.

All that's happened is that that stay has been granted, and the petition has been granted. They haven't issued a "decision" in the case itself. Don't get me wrong, it's still a big deal for Trump, but they only needed four Justices on board for this and we already know definitively who three of them are.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: vor78

Deciding to hear a case isn't the same as deciding a case.

To hear a case, only four Justices need to agree to grant the petition for certiorari. When the government filed it's petition, it included a request for a stay on the lower courts' orders.

All that's happened is that that stay has been granted, and the petition has been granted. They haven't issued a "decision" in the case itself. Don't get me wrong, it's still a big deal for Trump, but they only needed four Justices on board for this and we already know definitively who three of them are.


Wrong... for the vast majority of those people in the affected countries the travel ban can go into effect now.


"In practical terms, this means that §2(c) 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. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO--2."



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:18 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.


Not correct. A big part of the 90 day process was to work with the countries affected by the ban so that those countries could comply with the new security measures that the Trump administration wanted to apply. Knowing that the Trump administration could not enforce the law gave those countries little incentive to take it seriously. Now they have to.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Uh, no. Not wrong. The stay was issued, which is what I said, genius. If the government requested a stay on the blocking of the ban then and SCOTUS grants the stay on the blocking of the ban then, ergo sum, the block of the ban is no longer in place.

I know I used big words and stuff but try really, really hard to understand before you wrongly declare somebody else wrong.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: UKTruth

Uh, no. Not wrong. The stay was issued, which is what I said, genius. If the government requested a stay on the blocking of the ban then and SCOTUS grants the stay on the blocking of the ban then, ergo sum, the block of the ban is no longer in place.

I know I used big words and stuff but try really, really hard to understand before you wrongly declare somebody else wrong.


So you were wrong then. They have made a decision and the ban can be enforced for the vast majority of the people in the countries involved. You 'big words and stuff' were not required. It's simply a big win for Trump and a rebuke of the politically motivated liberal judges in the lower courts, no more explanation needed.
edit on 26/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I think I understand. I knew that's how it worked for deciding whether the court would take a case to begin with, but I did not know if something like this went to the full court or not.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, they have not issued a final decision.

They did two things today: decided to hear the case, and decided to grant the stay on lifting the blocking of the order. They did not issue a final ruling on the case.

Which is exactly what I said. So no, I am not wrong. You're just so caught up in your fanboyishness and can't understand that there's a difference between granting a stay and issuing a final ruling and have confused yourself. Not my fault that happened.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

It goes to all the Justices, yes. But as soon as four of them say they'll grant the writ, that's it. It's on the books to hear arguments.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: UKTruth

No, they have not issued a final decision.

They did two things today: decided to hear the case, and decided to grant the stay on lifting the blocking of the order. They did not issue a final ruling on the case.

Which is exactly what I said. So no, I am not wrong. You're just so caught up in your fanboyishness and can't understand that there's a difference between granting a stay and issuing a final ruling and have confused yourself. Not my fault that happened.


The ban is only for 90 days - the decision in the fall is not that important in terms of the original intent of the ban.
The DECISION today means Trump now has the leverage he wanted with the 6 countries affected and can begin refusing entry to the vast majority of the citizens of those 6 countries. Liberals are looking for some solace after a big win for Trump. That's the sum of it - without any 'big words and stuff' required.
edit on 26/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join