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.

 

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

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

You're preaching to the choir and I've been singin' for years.

The law was not challenged, President's Trump's actions under the law were. The decision is not about the constitutionality of the law but on Trump's actions.

Yes, there is another way to look at it ... the way the SCOTUS did. Have you read the decision? I have.

ED: SCOTUS reversed the finding of a lower court.


Yeah I did, they specifically say the order is in line with the law, which obviously is not unconstitutional or they would have said so, and they said the order didn't violate the First Amendment. It's constitutional, and so is the law the order was based on.




posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

You're preaching to the choir and I've been singin' for years.

The law was not challenged, President's Trump's actions under the law were. The decision is not about the constitutionality of the law but on Trump's actions.

Yes, there is another way to look at it ... the way the SCOTUS did. Have you read the decision? I have.

ED: SCOTUS reversed the finding of a lower court.


Yeah I did, they specifically say the order is in line with the law, which obviously is not unconstitutional or they would have said so, and they said the order didn't violate the First Amendment. It's constitutional, and so is the law the order was based on.


All due respect, you're making a semantic argument.

Your claim is that the primary way to interpret what SCOTUS did is that Trump's EO is constitutional, and that is your opinion, not fact.

They reversed the lower court's decision, they didn't rule in favor of Trump's travel ban.
edit on 26-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They ruled in favor of Trumps travel ban noting the President had the authority to restrict who comes into this country while striking down the argument made by challengers that his order was unconstitutional on 1st amendment violation grounds.

With no constitutional violation found it means Trump EO is lawful and constitutional.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

They ruled in favor of Trumps travel ban noting the President had the authority to restrict who comes into this country while striking down the argument made by challengers that his order was unconstitutional on 1st amendment violation grounds.

With no constitutional violation found it means Trump EO is lawful and constitutional.



We are not disagreeing for a change.

The authority by which the President made the Order is vested in him by 8 USC §1182(f).

See Item #2: TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. HAWAII ET AL.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Eh, I guess that's possible. It seems a foregone conclusion to me that this decision only addressed the specific travel ban, not future bans. It does make future challenges to immigration matters a little steeper, because we now have precedent, but that does not preclude the ability to challenge. The President has great leeway in immigration, but not absolute power.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm just going to say it sickens me that so much bias exists on the supreme court that this decision was not 9-0.

The judges that voted against are not doing their job. They are supposed to make decisions on the law and the law could not get much clearer in this case.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

www.npr.org... not sure if this applies to the children per say but if it does they can be held indefinitely with out bail hearings


NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: The court ruled that immigrants held in detention for months and even years are not entitled to a bail hearing. Although such detentions number in the tens of thousands, they're not the usual deportation cases where the facts are cut-and-dry and the people are deported within a month or two of their detention. Rather, these cases involve people who are legal permanent residents in the U.S. and are subject to potential deportation because they've committed some relatively minor crime or people who've come to the U.S. to seek asylum and have passed the first level of screening. When their cases are ultimately decided, 70 percent of the asylum-seekers and 40 percent of the legal U.S. residents win. But the average period of their detention is 13 months, according to the government, and some remain in detention for far longer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that under a federal law, people in these circumstances are entitled to a bail hearing every six months, and that if they can persuade a neutral judge that they're not a safety or a flight risk, they're entitled to temporary release if they post a money bond or agree to electronic monitoring or both. But today the Supreme Court overturned that decision as an implausible reading of the federal statute. Writing for a splintered 5 to 3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the statute does not allow for bail. The decision doesn't end the case, though. The court sent it back to the lower court with two questions unresolved. First, whether indefinite detention without a chance for bail is unconstitutional, and second, whether the challenge to that no-bail provision can be brought as a class action instead of in one-by-one individual cases.
not been following devopment on it but i do remember when it came out



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

Eh, I guess that's possible. It seems a foregone conclusion to me that this decision only addressed the specific travel ban, not future bans. It does make future challenges to immigration matters a little steeper, because we now have precedent, but that does not preclude the ability to challenge. The President has great leeway in immigration, but not absolute power.

TheRedneck


Indeed, not absolute power because this area of authority is provided for in law, which is anticipated in Article II, Section 3 in the line: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

I feel it safe to say we may all be straining at gnats though, unless we wish to debate the finest points of SCOTUS decisions, LOL.

Trump won.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm just going to say it sickens me that so much bias exists on the supreme court that this decision was not 9-0.

The judges that voted against are not doing their job. They are supposed to make decisions on the law and the law could not get much clearer in this case.


The dissenting opinion was based on the Establishment Clause. It's a reasonable argument, though it failed.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is so funny to me that trump thinks criminals are going to follow a travel ban law and not sneak in here under false papers.

The 911 hijackers all had fake passports. A travel ban would not have stopped them.


Edit: Correction they might have not used fake passports according to the official narrative about the hijackers.
They used travel visas.

Travel visas can be faked.
edit on 26-6-2018 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
This was always just an activist judge working for Democrats delaying the inevitable.
Ultimately the President can decide to halt immigration and travel from any country in the interests of security and I hope he fully uses his broad powers.
I note that the scum in the liberal media have already determined the Supreme Court to be politically biased, yet did not declare a SINGLE ninth circuit judge to be biased when they made their ruling.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

They are a danger clearly to the republic. They want some sort of democratic on the fly government and its easy to see why. But they cant win the numbers even.....unless they could stack the SC. Its bad.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I feel it safe to say we may all be straining at gnats though, unless we wish to debate the finest points of SCOTUS decisions, LOL.

Trump won.

Agreed.

I finally finished reading, well, scanning anyway, the majority opinion. It does appear that Trump's original argument based on 8 USC 1182(f) was upheld strongly, and the Court also used the wording of 8 USC 1185(a), which itself gives broad power to a President to make exceptions to the included immigration laws, to back it up.

As I was trying to explain to Introvert (apparently unsuccessfully), the bottom line is that yes, Trump won today. The travel ban is in (and will likely stay in) full effect, and those who opposed it lost. I think the biggest takeaway from this in the minds of the voters in the upcoming midterm will be that Trump was right, and those who opposed him on this were wrong.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


I feel it safe to say we may all be straining at gnats though, unless we wish to debate the finest points of SCOTUS decisions, LOL.

Trump won.

I think the biggest takeaway from this in the minds of the voters in the upcoming midterm will be that Trump was right, and those who opposed him on this were wrong.

TheRedneck


Trump can never be right and the Progressives are never wrong. The Supreme Court and the rest of us are just Neanderthal Nazis.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is so funny to me that trump thinks criminals are going to follow a travel ban law and not sneak in here under false papers.

The 911 hijackers all had fake passports. A travel ban would not have stopped them.


ALL of them? Please source that claim.


The fact is, only one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country. .


link



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas


Ok, they could use fake tourist visas then. Probably easier to get one of those anyway.

Are you really arguing that it can't be done?



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I think for fun, we should revisit some of those travel Ban threads from bsck when it was current news and look for some crow for people to eat.

They look hangry.
edit on 26-6-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: pavil




14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas


Ok, they could use fake tourist visas then. Probably easier to get one of those anyway.

Are you really arguing that it can't be done?


So I guess that means you didn't have the proof to back up your misstatement? I'm sure it can be done, but there was no need. They came here by legal means in regards to entry to US. What did we have to fear from Saudi Nationals at the time.

There was some common name misidentification of a few of the hijackers from what I remember but 4 of the hijackers passports miraculously survived the crashes. They came here legally.
edit on 26-6-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

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.


I will have to dig into again but didnt they kick it back to a lower court to go over soundness of the law with the added ruling that the president has the power?



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




4 of the hijackers passports miraculously survived the crashes.

And you believe that?




sure it can be done

So if it can be done how would a travel ban stop it?




top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join