US Supreme Court - 5 to 4 ruling - Trump travel ban stands

a reply to: face23785

just what is the left advocating for that has you posting nonsense again?

Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Love the history lessons from someone so well versed in the facts of the matter.

Lol.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Sotomayor certainly for the record revealed her globalist ties with her "feelings" on the decision. Guess we can count on her to throw the Constitution out the window.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: howtonhawky

Love the history lessons from someone so well versed in the facts of the matter.

Lol.

you can take it from here

It was interesting throughout this whole saga that nobody complained that North Korea was on the list.

We all know that discrimination against Asians is perfectly fine with progressives.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Breaking news. Scotus rules potus is within his authority to implement the travel ban. All challenges have no standing.

Developing story.

ETA -
Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld President Donald Trump's restriction on travel to the United States from a handful of Muslim countries on Tuesday, giving the White House its first high court victory on the merits of a Trump initiative.

After a series of federal court rulings invalidated or scaled back earlier versions of the travel ban, Tuesday's win for the administration ended 15 months of legal battles over a key part of the president's immigration policy, which opponents attacked as a dressed up form of the Muslim ban Donald that Trump promised during his 2016 campaign.

Imposed last September by presidential proclamation, the latest version maintains limits on granting visas to travelers from five of the seven countries covered by the original executive order on travel — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It lifts restrictions on visitors from Sudan, and it adds new limits on North Korea and Venezuela.

click link for article...

The immigration law passed by Congress gave potus the authority to restrict entrance of people from countries who wont provide required info.

Another victory for Trump and

Womp Womp for the Anti Trump Crowd..

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ruling doesn't appear to actually to address the constitutionality of the orders. Instead, they only ruled that the president has the authority to do what he did. That is why the source quoted Roberts: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy".

Haven't had much time to dig in to this, but that stands out as being quite important.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Xcathdra


Sotomayor certainly for the record revealed her globalist ties with her "feelings" on the decision. Guess we can count on her to throw the Constitution out the window.

C'mon now, we already knew her Political bias overwhelms her constitutional zeal.

I'll shed one tear when she steps down. It will gall her to do so under a Trump Administration.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ruling doesn't appear to actually to address the constitutionality of the orders. Instead, they only ruled that the president has the authority to do what he did. That is why the source quoted Roberts: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy".

Haven't had much time to dig in to this, but that stands out as being quite important.

Hmm, where did the President derive that authority?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ruling doesn't appear to actually to address the constitutionality of the orders. Instead, they only ruled that the president has the authority to do what he did. That is why the source quoted Roberts: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy".

Haven't had much time to dig in to this, but that stands out as being quite important.

You stand corrected. Ruling that the President has the authority is effectively ruling it constitutional. If it was unconstitutional, he doesn't have the authority. The quote from Roberts is merely saying they don't agree or disagree with his action, they're merely saying it was lawful.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ruling doesn't appear to actually to address the constitutionality of the orders. Instead, they only ruled that the president has the authority to do what he did. That is why the source quoted Roberts: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy".

Haven't had much time to dig in to this, but that stands out as being quite important.

Hmm, where did the President derive that authority?

The authority and the contents of the order are two separate things. The president can have the right to do something, but that does not mean he goes about it in a constitutionally-compliant manner.

That is why I am asking for specifics on this.

Ok. But increasing / affirming Presidential Powers in this way may someday bite back when you disagree with what is being done. Be careful in celebrating too much.

Personally, it makes me sick. I know people who escaped from religious persecution in Iran (threat of death or torture and imprisonment due solely to their religious belief, as well as having their jobs taken away, being expelled from school, having their own private schools raided and destroyed, being stoned, burned to death by mobs or officially hung by the state, having their assets taken by the state, and other atrocities.).

America would not take these people in now. Shining City my ***.

a reply to: introvert

Which means it's Constitutional.

🎃💮

a reply to: face23785

You stand corrected. Ruling that the President has the authority is effectively ruling it constitutional. If it was unconstitutional, he doesn't have the authority. The quote from Roberts is merely saying they don't agree or disagree with his action, they're merely saying it was lawful.

That is incorrect. Just because the president has the authority, does not mean he is not bound by constitutional restrictions that supersede his authority. He can pass these sorts of orders, but that does not mean the order will stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

Did they rule on the constitutionality of the order, or just the presidents authority?

a reply to: introvert

At least they didn't split into unmanageable parts like they did with the ACA.

💥🎃💥

originally posted by: face23785
It was interesting throughout this whole saga that nobody complained that North Korea was on the list.

We all know that discrimination against Asians is perfectly fine with progressives.

dum dum dum

During this time nk was threatening to nuke us....

You really do go all out with the nonsense.

a reply to: howtonhawky

So was Iran

💥🎃💥

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, that's that.

I could point out that they ruled as such on the more limited travel ban ... but, nah.

Congratulations on the first win in the SCOTUS, Mr. President.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ruling doesn't appear to actually to address the constitutionality of the orders. Instead, they only ruled that the president has the authority to do what he did. That is why the source quoted Roberts: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy".

Haven't had much time to dig in to this, but that stands out as being quite important.

You stand corrected. Ruling that the President has the authority is effectively ruling it constitutional. If it was unconstitutional, he doesn't have the authority. The quote from Roberts is merely saying they don't agree or disagree with his action, they're merely saying it was lawful.

failure after failure

They can and do get things wrong.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The failed logic is from you.

The poster you replied to was explaining the problems that would have existed should a travel ban from Nazi Germany had not been possible during WWII. Your response was that by not having a ban, we got defectors like Werner von Braun.

What you fail to realize is that we did ban travel form Nazi Germany except for the few defecting scientists that came in through special arrangement with the DoD. Therefore, your logic that a ban would have prevented us from obtaining that talent is completely illogical because

• there was a ban in place during WWII
  
• the scientists you mention did not immigrate through normal channels.

TheRedneck