Travel Ban Upheld!

[seer]

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supr...-ban-case.html

[demi-conservative]

Though the ban applies to five countries with Muslim majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Roberts wrote, noting that those five countries amount to only 8 percent of the world's Muslim population.

That is obvious.

[Mountain Man]

Waffle Roberts comes through. It's troubling how narrow this decision was. Based on the arguments presented, it's obvious that the four against ruled based on politics rather than the law. It will be nice if Trump gets at least one more SC appointment; two would be ideal.

[Roy]

Waffle Roberts comes through. It's troubling how narrow this decision was. Based on the arguments presented, it's obvious that the four against ruled based on politics rather than the law. It will be nice if Trump gets at least one more SC appointment; two would be ideal.

Cue "The Pelican Brief".

[Sparko]

Considering Schumer just begged Trump to use his pen to "fix" immigration, I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on to argue Trump doesn't have the authority to do so.

[Mountain Man]

Considering Schumer just begged Trump to use his pen to "fix" immigration, I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on to argue Trump doesn't have the authority to do so.

Ha ha! You're assuming that liberals are rational.

[Terraceth]

Based on the arguments presented, it's obvious that the four against ruled based on politics rather than the law.

How so?

[Starlight]

Based on the arguments presented, it's obvious that the four against ruled based on politics rather than the law.

IMO in general, overall (I haven't looked at this specific case yet), the 4 'liberals' tend to make reasonable and rational rulings based on law, the kind I would expect from the average judge in my own country where appointments aren't political. Whereas when I see the conservative judges rule different from the liberals, and I look at the case, I almost always conclude that the conservative judges' rulings were politically biased and not based on rationality and reason. That's been my fairly consistent experience.

It will be nice if Trump gets at least one more SC appointment; two would be ideal.

It will be interesting to see whether Dems in 2020 have the spine to say "Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama, so we're appointing 2 judges immediately to restore balance" and how Republicans will respond to that.

[Tassman]

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supr...-ban-case.html

The references to religion were specifically excluded, but we know that's what it was about because Trump explicitly said so many times. This was the third, watered down version...the one Trump sneeringly described a "politically correct"...with North Korea and Venezuela added for window dressing.

[seer]

The references to religion were specifically excluded, but we know that's what it was about because Trump explicitly said so many times. This was the third, watered down version...the one Trump sneeringly described a "politically correct"...with North Korea and Venezuela added for window dressing.

But that is the point Tass, there is no mention of religion in the LAW, and it is the LAW that has to be judged, not what Trump said or didn't say. Never mind the fact that the ban DID NOT include many Muslim countries.

[Starlight]

More than a few people are pointing out that it looks rather suspicious that the conservatives on SCOTUS:
- found a problem with the gay bakery case on the grounds that the state equality commissioner might have said something negative about a particular evangelical Christian view
- choose to deliberately avoid seeing any religious implications of this travel ban and choose to ignore Trump's explicit statements that it was a Muslim ban

...it's almost like the conservatives on SCOTUS think that evangelical Christianity is the only religious view that needs to be protected. ~cue shock and surprise~

[NorrinRadd]

More than a few people are pointing out that it looks rather suspicious that the conservatives on SCOTUS:
- found a problem with the gay bakery case on the grounds that the state equality commissioner might have said something negative about a particular evangelical Christian view
- choose to deliberately avoid seeing any religious implications of this travel ban and choose to ignore Trump's explicit statements that it was a Muslim ban

...it's almost like the conservatives on SCOTUS think that evangelical Christianity is the only religious view that needs to be protected. ~cue shock and surprise~

"More than a few people" wouldn't have enough power to blow their noses if their brains were made of dynamite.

The two cases are not analogous.

[NorrinRadd]

...
It will be interesting to see whether Dems in 2020 have the spine to say "Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama, so we're appointing 2 judges immediately to restore balance" and how Republicans will respond to that.

How do you figure to do that "immediately"? Arrange for two of the conservative Justices to have "accidents" so that seats open up?

[Roy]

How do you figure to do that "immediately"? Arrange for two of the conservative Justices to have "accidents" so that seats open up?

Increasing the number from 9 to 11 looks like a more humane option. Though I anticipated your proposal:

Cue "The Pelican Brief".

[Starlight]

How do you figure to do that "immediately"?

Increase the number of justices on the court. It's been done before.

Over US history the number of SCOTUS justices has gone: 6, 7, 9, 10, 7, 9. Congress has authority with regard to changing that number.

When SCOTUS looked like it might strike down FDR's New Deal, FDR threatened to get congress to add more justices to SCOTUS until he had a supportive majority.

So if Dems win by enough, and have the political will and spine to do so, they can say on day one "As everyone is aware, Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat that wasn't theirs to appoint, so we're adding 2 more (Dem-appointed) justices to SCOTUS right now".

Of course Republicans across the country would have hissy fits if they weren't allowed to get away with their SCOTUS seat theft.