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: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Pretty much, yes. A lower court can still adjudicate any claims against the EO, but not because of its constitutionality. The Supreme Court took that argument off the table.

Essentially, people can still sue if they feel the EO impacts them improperly, just not over any f the things the Supreme Court heard.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
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?



I think the 4 passports are an anomaly that needs a lot more looking into.

Would a travel ban had made it easier or harder for the 9/11 terrorists to enter the US.

I'll leave you alone now.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




Would a travel ban had made it easier or harder for the 9/11 terrorists to enter the US.


Wouldn't have mattered to them. They could have just gotten fake stuff. or they could move to a country that's not on the ban list and get a legal passport and come here that way. Or fly to canada and cross our northern border.



I'll leave you alone now.

Why? You haven't told me how a ban stops people from obtaining fake passports yet. I would really like to know.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: pavil




Would a travel ban had made it easier or harder for the 9/11 terrorists to enter the US.


Wouldn't have mattered to them. They could have just gotten fake stuff. or they could move to a country that's not on the ban list and get a legal passport and come here that way. Or fly to canada and cross our northern border.



I'll leave you alone now.

Why? You haven't told me how a ban stops people from obtaining fake passports yet. I would really like to know.


Sigh.....so it would have made it harder for them to enter. Every reason you just gave was a "making it harder" point. Don't you see that?

Thanks for playing.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.


I'm not making a semantic argument. The opinion from the court specifically says the EO is supported by law. If it violated the Constitution, they wouldn't be able to say that. These 2 things go hand in hand. You can't be lawful AND unconstitutional. The Constitution is the highest law we have. If the order is lawful, it's constitutional. The semantic argument here is from people clinging to "but the opinion doesn't contain the words 'Trump's order was constitutional'". It doesn't contain those words, but it is, in fact, constitutional, for the reasons I've stated 6 times now and you guys are choosing to be willfully ignorant about. I have better things to do than to watch you guys play word games.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




so it would have made it harder for them to enter.

I never said it was harder. I said it wouldn't mater. It's not that difficult to get a fake id or passport....just trust me on that.

Most career criminals already use aliases and fake paper work .

It would not make it harder.

Explain how a travel ban would stop them from doing these things.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This Ruling is an affirmation that the Power of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government has the Legal Authority , and Now Recognized by the SCOTUS , to Ban Select People Considered Undesirable who wish to Enter the the Boarders of the United States on the grounds of being a Threat to National Security . The Constitution is Still the Law of the Land ! Hoo Rah !
edit on 26-6-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I looked at some of the Supreme Court's ruling, and I have to side with the majority this time.

This final instance of the "travel ban" appears to have crossed all of its T's and dotted all of its I's. It's also not nearly as bad as the first attempt.

There appears to be adequate supporting documentation backing the Executive Order. And a layman's understanding of the applicable statutes seem to indicate the President has the authority to limit immigration as he sees fit.

I may have some questions about the real reason for the ban, but the way it is currently written, it is legal.

I hope the Administration is judicial with its use of this power, and does not expand the "travel ban" unnecessarily.

-dex



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 07:47 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?


Might as well just not have any laws. Someone might break them.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

We have enough laws as it is, we don't need more useless ones.

We should have a lot less laws.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



That has been explained to you over and over, by several posters including myself. Yet you keep asking the same old questions time and again, in direct opposition to what you were told. If you want knowledge, fine; I posted it above. If you just want to make up wild semantic arguments that mean less than nothing, then go argue with a law professor.


I got the answer I was looking for, though my side point I was making really had nothing to do with what you posted. Except for this part:



If the President comes out with a different travel ban, it may be challenged as well, but that challenge will take place under the assumption that this particular ban is constitutional.


My point was that the president has the authority, granted by the constitution, to enact a travel ban, but even though the SCOTUS has ruled he has such authority, it does not mean any further action he takes in a similar fashion is automatically constitutional and beyond challenge.

I stated it many times and it appears only one person actually understood the very simple premise I was imparting.



And please quit trying to project your characteristics on to me. That is childish.


The old "I know you are but what am I" approach, huh?

Ok.

Again, I'm not sure why you and others were so triggered by me asking a question. I did not say anything negative towards Trump and was only making a side comment that I think we can all agree with.

How and why you decided to spit nonsense about "denial" and such is beyond me. There was no need to be a dick, but you were. That's fine.

But do not make false claims about denial, when there was no reason whatsoever to even hint at such a thing, and do not be condescending when it appears that you and others could not even grasp what I was talking about/asking.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The other part of the ruling that almost everyone missed actually addressed the district courts and nation wide injunctions. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that it was not until Trump became President have district courts been issuing nationwide injunctions. He essentially said they really dont have that authority and the constitution doesnt give them that authority. He said if it continues then the Supreme Court will be forced to correct the district court mindset.

I never understood how a district court could presume they have more authority that an appeals circuit. Hell appeals circuits have no impact on any states / other circuits outside of theirs. The purpose was to get different aspects of the legal systems thinking by having different judges make rulings based on the case facts and how the judges see the arguments being made by both sides.

Having one federal district issue a ruling that is nationwide would be like having a town of about 550 people having their municipal court judge issue a ruling in there case and then trying to force that ruling onto other jurisdictions.

It does not and cannot work that way.

Excellent overview of the purpose of the federal court system and the supreme court in particular. People dont seem to understand that once a general jurisdiction court rules the suspect cant just appeal because they didnt like the outcome. They must challenge the ruling by raising constitutional issues in the outcome in order to appeal.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I was surprised those challenging his EO tried to claim a constitutional violation under the 1st amendment. The EO doesnt even mention religion and 2 of the countries on the list, Venezuela and N. Korea arent considered "Muslim countries".

Justice Soto-mayer errored (imo) by trying to use language from the election cycle as a basis to rule against Trump. It ignored the legal issue in front of her while using irrelevant material to form her decision.

The questions were -
Does the President have authority to do this - yes by the constitution and statutory law delegated by Congress.
Does this EO target Muslims - No
Does this EO target one group of people - No
Does this EO violate the Constitution - No

None of the countries listed are 100% Muslim and the EO doesn't target one religion over another in the listed countries. It targets countries as a whole and then only countries who refuse to provide the required information about their citizens who are wanting to come to the US.

2 of the original countries on the list were removed because their government decided to comply with US requirements on information regarding their citizens.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You keep reciting the obvious as if it supports your opinion that you're saying something of significance different from what others have said here.

SCOTUS held that Trump's order was complaint with the requirements of 8 USC 1182 (f). That wasn't a constitutional question, and it isn't a constitutional claim. You might consider that under Article III, the Court acts as the highest 'court of appeal' and is not limited merely to questions of constitutionality/unconstitutionality as you seem to think.

8 USC 1182 (f) is not the Constitution although it does arise from the legislative power of Congress found in Article I. Trump's authority to issue the EO is based primarily on 8 USC 1182 (f) although it too arises from Article II. There was a secondary argument brought against the EO that it violated the Establishment Clause (First Amendment) which was also found lacking. The action taken in this decision was to reverse the prior courts rulings.

Ultimately then, you can argue until you are blue that this was all primarily a "constitutional matter" and techncially you would be correct as all powers to do any of these things by the President, Congress or Supreme Court arise from the Constitution, but that is not only a semantic argument, but a specious one that you keep repeating incessantly while pedantically making blatantly obvious statements like "the Constitution is the highest law we have."

Pardon me for saying so, but "duh."
edit on 26-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Watching trms read a dissenting opinion on a losing SCOTUS decision then remind all the peons the only change will come from a voting booth on the night the big bad dem in ny got rolled......
PRICELESS

What a day!



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think the part you might be missing was the basis of the legal challenges. While a federal law / constitution support the Presidents authority the main complaint was it was a Muslim ban, which they argued violated the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Courts ruled that A - The President was exercising lawful authority and B - his executive order did not violate anyone's rights under the Constitution (1st amendment).

So it was actually a constitutional matter.

Federal appeals circuits and scotus only take cases when a constitutional violation is alleged. They dont relitigate the cases the district courts already ruled on. They review the constitutional violation claims to determine if the lower court committed an error somewhere along the process that had an negative impact on the defendants rights.

If you know this the my bad. Not trying to lecture but am trying to point out where the argument is coming from regarding the constitutional.

If scotus determined Trump didnt have authority under the US code you cited then all actions taken under that statute are null based on a violation of the suspects / defendants constitutional rights.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Watching trms read a dissenting opinion on a losing SCOTUS decision then remind all the peons the only change will come from a voting booth on the night the big bad dem in ny got rolled......
PRICELESS

What a day!


I about fell over when I saw that a 28 year old woman in NY beat a 10 term congressman who was poised to move into leadership position (if not Speaker) should the Democrats retake the house.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Indeed, I'm surprised Roberts didn't bring this out in the Majority Opinion ... this is the real groundbreaking finding in the decision! Not only, as you point out, correcting course on lower courts issuing nationwide dictims, but this is the one that blew me away.



Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.


Emphasis mine.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Indeed, I'm surprised Roberts didn't bring this out in the Majority Opinion ... this is the real groundbreaking finding in the decision! Not only, as you point out, correcting course on lower courts issuing nationwide dictims, but this is the one that blew me away.



Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.


Emphasis mine.


One of the main points a lot of us raised when the challenges to his EO started. The courts position is the President has access to information that the public does not and as such should not be second guessed.

I was wondering how long it was going to take before district courts got spanked for pulling these stunts. Lets see if they heed the warning Thomas gave.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


My point was that the president has the authority, granted by the constitution, to enact a travel ban, but even though the SCOTUS has ruled he has such authority, it does not mean any further action he takes in a similar fashion is automatically constitutional and beyond challenge.

The problem was that you were taking a specific and trying to apply it to a general. This decision had nothing to do with any other future actions. It was only about one EO and the lawsuits surrounding it.

I honestly could not understand your question. You kept saying the President has authority but that authority was somehow not necessarily constitutional? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, when I explained why it made no sense, you insisted that it did and asked the same thing in the same way again.

That gets frustrating. It feels like trying to talk to a stubborn 6-year-old.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join