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.

 

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules For Full Enforcement of Trump Travel Ban

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Also, this means Sanctuary Cities are not far behind. That one infuriates me more than the Travel Ban block.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think we all knew this was going to happen. All the tweets, threads, facebook posts, and machinations of TV personalities, once again turned out to be pipe dreams.


Opposition to the travel ban wasn't based on any merits, it was just about delaying it so that it's in place for less time before being repealed. Rather than being in place for 4 years, now it will be in place for 3.

That said, I don't really see any merits to the ban. It's completely irrelevant to national security and foreign policy.



Oh.... So thats it. Great logic there.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
MEXICO WILL BUILD THE WALL !
Because I'd have all Mexican prisoners who has been raping the USA
BUILD IT !

MAGA 👍



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey man glad to see you in here, as I've got a couple questions.

The articles I've read have indicated that SCOTUS has "asked" for 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals, who both have hearings this week about the travel ban, to make a ruling soon so that SCOTUS can rule on this again by the end of this session.

Do you know what those courts are having hearings about and why those hearings aren't (apparently) impacted by the ruling today? Further, what it is that SCOTUS wants to be able to rule on by end of term?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
All this does is allow the ban to take effect while the appeals courts work out the lawfulness of the EO/ban.

It's not a SCOTUS decision, just an order until the appeals courts make their decisions.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Why would Canada be any different then the other 50 states?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Dfairlite
Just a thought, but is it possible that the people that used to blackmail the Supreme Court justices might not have any pull now?

That is something to think about!!


OR

I'll add my usual "to advanced to discuss anymore" part.


From our very own KSigMason:


Looking at all the sources, roughly one third of the Supreme Court Justices have been Masons. Bro. Paul Bessel put it nicely with:


"This might be just an interesting statistic, if they were Masons in name only, and some probably were. However, it appears that several were Masters of their Lodges, and some were Grand Masters of their Grand Lodges. Undoubtedly, then, the philosophy and spirit of Freemasonry had some effect on them, as well as the other Masons on the Supreme Court. This, in turn, may mean that to some extent the decisions of the Supreme Court, which have had so much of an impact on the lives of all Americans, reflect some of the teachings of Freemasonry."

Justices of the Supreme Court and Freemasonry, Part 1
Justices of the Supreme Court and Freemasonry, Part 2
Justices of the Supreme Court and Freemasonry, Part 3


edit on 5-12-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Opposition to the travel ban wasn't based on any merits, it was just about delaying it so that it's in place for less time before being repealed. Rather than being in place for 4 years, now it will be in place for 3.

That said, I don't really see any merits to the ban. It's completely irrelevant to national security and foreign policy.


I was under the oppression it was a temporary ban. If it wasn't delayed or obstructed it would be over by now.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

This slapped down the TRO put in place that stopped enforcement. IMO this is a signal to the lower courts that the ban will be upheld at SCOTUS. I expect that the lower courts will hear the arguments and issue similar rulings upholding the ban. On appeal, the SCOTUS will deny and it will be settled.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Gotcha, thanks.

Can't say I agree that the lower courts will be likely to uphold, though. Those two courts have a lengthy history of doing as they please and legislating from the bench. I don't think they'll particularly care what SCOTUS did today and will rule however they're going to rule and let it be appealed from there.

They're not likely to roll over, I don't think.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
All this does is allow the ban to take effect while the appeals courts work out the lawfulness of the EO/ban.

It's not a SCOTUS decision, just an order until the appeals courts make their decisions.




The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.
The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

edit on 4-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
Oh.... So thats it. Great logic there.


There's really no merits to the ban. It's a 90 day temporary ban, or that's how it was defended. It was sold as a stopgap measure to put in place while they figured out what's going on. It took over 300 days to get a temporary 90 day hold in place.

The ban is basically pointless. It's a temporary measure and doesn't even stop the countries that are real problems. It's nothing more than a dog whistle to people scared of Islam, because they think it does something... when in reality that's not the case.

I have no doubts that President Pence will renew it when the time comes (since Trump will be impeached and thrown out at some point), but it's not exactly meaningful legislation... it's just a feel good bone thrown to the base without actually doing anything.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I was under the oppression it was a temporary ban. If it wasn't delayed or obstructed it would be over by now.


Correct, that's why there's no merits to this ban. Within 90 days, a permanent policy should have been proposed and implemented regardless of the status of this.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

If it was closer than 7-2 I would agree. But time will tell. Hopefully we have a ruling by the end of the year.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

And this is going to address homegrown terror plots how exactly?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil


The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges against it continue. [...] The court’s brief, unsigned order on Monday urged appeals courts to move swiftly to determine whether the latest ban was lawful.


NTY



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

All that would have done is started this over. That's why they didn't go that route. Once they get a full ruling on this they can craft their permanent policy around that ruling and avoid any legal pitfalls.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I was under the oppression it was a temporary ban. If it wasn't delayed or obstructed it would be over by now.


Correct, that's why there's no merits to this ban. Within 90 days, a permanent policy should have been proposed and implemented regardless of the status of this.


There has been a review. Those countries are deficient in their records that is why they are on the list. Till they correct their systems on their side, i would foresee the travel bans from those countries remaining in place.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

It's not meant to. It's meant to stop from importing new terrorists. You know, stop the leak before you start to scoop water from the boat.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Dfairlite

Seriously...why put this in the mud pit. Now any thread that could have been civil and intelligent is doomed to be more of the same garbage.



For some reason I'm thinking that it wouldn't matter where this was put. I don't see the proggies showing up in droves and wanting much of this because constitutional facts and all.




top topics



 
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join