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

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Who thinks trump has ever seen a washing machine?
Except on a tv commercial that is. His idiot box is never turned off.

What do washing machines have to do with the Supreme Court ruling ?

(hint: answer like it's a riddle)

Washing Machines and the 2018 Supreme Court get the dirt out.

a reply to: introvert

They have clearly separated authority from the "soundness of the policy".

Uh, of course they have. That's what the Supreme Court does. They do not make opinion on what is best for the country, or a good idea, or a wise decision. Their only concern is whether or not the action under consideration is in agreement with the Constitution.

That's what they ruled. The President has the constitutional authority (he has no authority not derived form the Constitution) to enact a travel ban, specifically the one under consideration. If it were not constitutional, the President would have no authority to enact it. If he has authority to enact it, it is constitutional.

No government official has any legal authority whatsoever that does not derive from the Constitution. Period.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Uh, of course they have. That's what the Supreme Court does. They do not make opinion on what is best for the country, or a good idea, or a wise decision. Their only concern is whether or not the action under consideration is in agreement with the Constitution.

I was questioning whether the details of the ban where under consideration, or if it were only a matter of presidential authority. That is why I asked questions.

That's what they ruled. The President has the constitutional authority (he has no authority not derived form the Constitution) to enact a travel ban, specifically the one under consideration. If it were not constitutional, the President would have no authority to enact it. If he has authority to enact it, it is constitutional.

That was my biggest concern, as that is not necessarily true. Those are two separate arguments, which is why clarification is needed. Just because the president has the authority, does not mean it was/is constitutional. In fact, it's obviously absurd to suggest such a thing. The president's authority does not make any action he takes to be constitutional by default.

If they did rule on not only the matter of authority, but also on the constitutionality of the ban itself, then you would be correct, but only in this instance.

Again, just because he has the authority to take an action, does not make that action constitutionally-compliant by default.

a reply to: introvert

Again, just because he has the authority to take an action, does not make that action constitutionally-compliant by default.

And again, yes it does. The President does not get authority from anywhere by the Constitution.

But I forget... denial is the second stage of grief... or is it the third?

Carry on.

TheRedneck

apnews.com...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake.

The ap seems to think the President Trumps actions were constitutional and not discriminatory.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

So, now perhaps congress will get off their asses and fix the immigration system?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
apnews.com...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake.

The ap seems to think the President Trumps actions were constitutional and not discriminatory.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

So, now perhaps congress will get off their asses and fix the immigration system?

Yep! That is what Congresses job is and has been! Yet they condition us to hate on each other rather than focusing our displeasure on a do nothing, globalist Congress. They have played this game for YEARS.........

a reply to: TheRedneck

And again, yes it does. The President does not get authority from anywhere by the Constitution.

No. It does not. The constitution gives him that authority, yes, but it does not mean that his actions are automatically constitutionally compliant by default.

For example, he can institute a travel ban. He has that power. But he cannot pass a travel ban that states it only affects black people, and expect it to pass constitutional scrutiny.

Does he have the authority to do what he did? Yes.

Would the specifics of the ban be constitutional? No.

But I forget... denial is the second stage of grief... or is it the third?

Denial of what? We are discussing the issue and I am asking questions to get the specific details.

There's no need to be a dick.

a reply to: notsure1



why isn't saudi arabia on the travel ban? right there your case for a travel ban is proven to be a yuge joke. if trump was serious about keeping terrorism at bay saudi arabia would be on the list.

what about egypt and the muslim brotherhood?

a reply to: Xcathdra


Feel free to post those dissenting opinions. Should be great for a laugh. In fact I am laughing already.

originally posted by: introvert
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?

That's what the SCOTUS just did is determined that it stood up to scrutiny. It violates neither the Constitution nor established laws.

How do you not know this?

ETA: Disregard that question. I know you know this. Just an idea, when you have to pretend you're rock-stupid in order to continue your silly arguments, maybe you should reconsider your position. I know you know what the SCOTUS is and does. At this point I just think you're trolling.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

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.

What's your point? If they're bad enough, you can ban them? Either limiting people from coming here based on nationality is racist, or it's not. It shouldn't matter whether it's Iranians or North Koreans. The fact that none of you had a problem with it "discriminating" against North Koreans shows you had no real argument. It was just another part of the 2-year temper tantrum we've been watching since the election.

This was,never was and is not a ban.

A ban would be unconstitutional.

A ban would not include exceptions.

The exceptions include anyone who is verifiable basically.

Guaranteed that an all out ban would have been struck down.

More of a play on words and emotions on both imaginary sides.

a reply to: face23785

That's what the SCOTUS just did is determined that it stood up to scrutiny. It violates neither the Constitution nor established laws. How do you not know this?

I am just getting up to speed on the issue. That is why I am asking questions.

Funny. Only on ATS can someone get their balls busted for asking legitimate, non-partisan questions.

Edit:

ETA: Disregard that question. I know you know this. Just an idea, when you have to pretend you're rock-stupid in order to continue your silly arguments, maybe you should reconsider your position. I know you know what the SCOTUS is and does. At this point I just think you're trolling.

I stand by my "arguments".

Are you going to be a dick as well?

I never knew asking questions could so easily trigger people.

Perhaps you need to get a grip on your emotions.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: howtonhawky

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.

What's your point? If they're bad enough, you can ban them? Either limiting people from coming here based on nationality is racist, or it's not. It shouldn't matter whether it's Iranians or North Koreans. The fact that none of you had a problem with it "discriminating" against North Koreans shows you had no real argument. It was just another part of the 2-year temper tantrum we've been watching since the election.

What?

You are not making sense there.

What is this fact you speak of and how am i part of "non of you"?

Would you feel better and allow you to make more sense if i say i am sorry?

You can not ban people for their nationality!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

That's what the SCOTUS just did is determined that it stood up to scrutiny. It violates neither the Constitution nor established laws. How do you not know this?

I am just getting up to speed on the issue. That is why I am asking questions.

Funny. Only on ATS can someone get their balls busted for asking legitimate, non-partisan questions.

Edit:

ETA: Disregard that question. I know you know this. Just an idea, when you have to pretend you're rock-stupid in order to continue your silly arguments, maybe you should reconsider your position. I know you know what the SCOTUS is and does. At this point I just think you're trolling.

I stand by my "arguments".

Are you going to be a dick as well?

I never knew asking questions could so easily trigger people.

Perhaps you need to get a grip on your emotions.

You asked, I answered, and you said I was wrong, but you are, and you're "just getting up to speed". Your arguments are based on faulty information. People more familiar with the issue than you are telling you what happened, and you're arguing from a position of ignorance. You seem triggered by being told you're wrong, even when you admit you're poorly informed. You're wrong.

We now decide whether the President had authority under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Does this sound like they're not ruling on the constitutionality of the order? You know the First Amendment is part of the Constitution right? Or are you gonna pretend you don't know that either so you don't have to utter those humbling words "I was wrong"?

ETA: and no one was busting your balls for asking a question. I'm busting your balls for asking a question, not liking the answer, and arguing for the sake of arguing even when, by your own admission, you're not informed enough on this issue to do so. You can't be told anything by anyone. Sorry to bruise your little ego.

originally posted by: introvert
Just because the president has the authority, does not mean it was/is constitutional.

Actually it does. By definition the President can not have the authority to do something that is Unconstitutional.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
This never was and is not a ban.

A ban would be unconstitutional.

A ban would not include exceptions.

The exceptions include anyone who is verifiable basically.

Guaranteed that an all out ban would have been struck down.

More of a play on words and emotions on both imaginary sides.

Wrong.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous requirements for admission. The Act also vests the President with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). Relying on that delegation, the President concluded that it was necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of countries that do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination, or that otherwise present national security risks.

My emphasis. This is from the SCOTUS ruling, and they're quoting directly from the law. "whenever" with no caveats or restrictions. It doesn't say "only if there are exceptions", not "only if it's not an all out ban". The President has the authority to restrict entry, whether it is on a single individual or a group. There is nothing in there about the kind of limitations you're suggesting exist.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You can not ban people for their nationality!

President Trump did and the SCOTUS backed his position.

a reply to: face23785

I imagine if the sole determinant of whether someone was detriment was whether they belonged to a protected class (religion, race, etc) then they would be found Unconstitutional. Otherwise I agree.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
You can not ban people for their nationality!

Actually, you can. Obama did it, and so did Trump.

Nationality is not a protected class.