The Supreme Court weighs in on travel ban...

A fairly clear indication on the Court's thinking issued today. A couple of what I consider to be the most interesting excerpts from the release this afternoon (with the colored highlights being mine):

It seems fairly clear that while the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts accepted a political argument against Trump's order, the High Court dismisses these arguments in favor of the President's Constitutionally recognized interest in preserving our national security.

Comments?

 

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. It is good to enact laws to protect national security if it do doesn't trample rights of US citizens. The way this "ban" was hastily did just that.
2. There was no act of terrorism in the past few months and the "ban" was purportedly only to last 90 days for the administration to figured out a "better" vetting process. Does that not mean the process we already have in placed is good enough that we don't need this temporary "ban"?
3. The window needed for the ban is over. Does this mean that the administration have had enough time to come up with a "better" plan to vet? yes or no, and if no, why not since the original ban was only to last 90 days?

 

No Citizens rights were trampled in the making of this order. None. The original order did substantially screw with people here an work visas but were they citizens they would not need work visas the second order took care of that problem. The stays have been lifted, now we get to try to figure out how to vet people coming here from war zones or failed states where there is little or no infrastructure or for that matter any real way to identify people.

 

Like the lower courts, you want to decide this based on the specifics of this particular executive order. If anything, the high court is saying that there are larger concerns and principles at work here, one of which is that the executive branch has the right to do exactly what President Trump did, and that the factors raised by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits in trying to block that from occuring end up being out of bounds when looked at against the backdrop of the Constitution.

 

Actually SCOTUS ruled 6-3 to allow the 90 day trial of the travel ban on people with no ties to the United States. If someone has family or any other entity in the US, they are not banned. So this is not upholding the travel ban and it is not fully banning the travel ban. Not sure how this is a complete win for Trump. In fact, I believe it is a bigger win for opponents of the travel ban.

 

What a ludicrous statement. Do you mean all this time this admin did NOTHING to come up with a plan, but rather they had to WAIT for the SC to make a ruling before they figured out something??? Do you realize how inept/incompetent this is??

 

I like how you gloss over the fact that I clearly agreed that Trump can do this as long as it doesn't interfere with rights of citizens. As for the rest, they are deflections and you are avoiding my second two questions. The admin had 5 months to come up with something it considered "better" vetting. Did it and if not why not?? does it really takes 5 MONTHS to come up with a plan? in the meantime, since there were NO terrorists activity report, one can safely make an educated guess, that the system we already have in place works. I note that all the terrorists activities thus far are homegrown by citizens.

 

Yes, SCOTUS exempted those with ties to the U.S. from being impacted by this order. So no, it's not a "complete" win for Trump, but it does speak directly to the idea that the Fourth and Ninth Circuits employed solid legal reasoning in their respective decisions. We'll have to wait until the end of the year for a complete understanding of the High Court's thinking, but for now, the Government's application to stay the injunction, aside from that specific exception, was granted. How exactly is that to be interpreted as a win for opponents of this particular order, or President Trump's ability to issue such an order?

 

I love to point out that by this particular line of reasoning, on September 10th 2001, we could safely conclude that the system we already had in place worked just fine. No security issues whatsoever. Do you see any possible problems with this way of thinking?

 

Does it takes more than 5 MONTHS to figure this out? did they have to wait for the SC's decision before coming up with a plan? I see you have ZERO answer for that, but you have to go ALL THE WAY BACK to 2001 for the first incident to occur but none in the 15 years since then. You don't think we take precautions since then?

 

Are you angry because the judges of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits were spanked? If so, I completely understand.

Lest you think otherwise, the topic I'm interested in discussing is whether a President, any President, has the right to place limitations on the people who enter the country. I thought it clear that the President can do this, and today SCOTUS confirmed that that is, in fact, their thinking as well. As I say, we'll have to wait until the end of the year to receive a more complete understanding of their thinking, but for now, I think it safe to conclude that the lower courts got it wrong...

 

You asked for my thoughts and I gave it. If you only want to discuss point 1, so be it. But you are deliberate being obtuse is you think I'm "angry" because the SC made its decision.

 

Do you have any idea how hard it is to vet somebody in a country with no central government, no finger print data, no border security, not one last thing we take for granted in the west when it comes to identifying people? About all you've got is door to door canvassing with photos, and just betwixt you and me unless I've got a somewhere between a battalion and brigade of Marines in support including a company on scene at every door at which I knock that ain't a job I want in Somalia , or any of those countries on that list.

 

Republicans control the Supreme court 5 - 4, so we will see if republicans support the ban or not

 

I would argue this because the majority of people from those countries have ties to the US and he gets his "90 day" trial period that will be up by the time the SCOTUS try the case. The ties to some entity in the US is very loose language that will most likely allow most people to apply for Visa making this trial period useless for what was intended by the Trump administration. Proponents against this travel ban was most concerned with this group of people. Finally, the 6-3 ruling may be a window into the beliefs of the Justices in SCOTUS. At least 6 of them viewed that Trump cannot institute this temporary ban without further review of the court. This is not a good sign for Trump.

 

Essentially, since nearly all the travelers on visas have a connection to the US, business, school, family, etc... the ban is still banned. Only the refugees are really affected by the Supreme Court ruling. Had the original ban been used in court than the SC likely would have upheld the ban on their banning as well since it included a religious test.
Since the admin has had 5 months to review the refugee process and found out that it has been over 30 years since a refugee attacked on US soil one would hope that cooler heads prevail rather than spite and they too shall be unaffected.
As to the fall ruling, if there is one and aside from the likelihood that Trump will no longer be president then, the original ban will be included in the arguments since they will be ruling on the president's power to do such things. With that in mind I believe they will affirm that national security is the President's domain but that he also swore an oath to uphold the constitution and that he must respect those rules.

 

At least the members of the Supreme court can read and apply the law as written.

 

Any chance anybody on the left can treat an issue as nonpartisan? I was hoping that might be possible, but you make me wonder...

A majority of people in Somalia have ties to the US? A majority of people in Yemen have ties to the US? You've got to be kidding. (And for those with ties to the US wishing to enter the country, I don't believe they're the main target of concern anyway. A very reasonable exception imposed by the Court on the President's order...).

As to SCOTUS, all indications are that their thinking is not in line with that of the lower courts. You conclude that this is somehow an indication that Trump cannot do things without review by the courts. I look at it as a clear indication of the faulty legal reasoning being employed by the liberal Circuit Courts on the coasts. Of course, I recognize that the Fourth and Ninth were not being looked to for a thoughtful, valid legal opinion. No, they were being asked if they wouldn't mind being a blunt political instrument with which to bludgeon the Trump administration, and they were only too glad to oblige. Lucky for us, SCOTUS is not so easily convinced that that's a good idea.

Yes, and I'd argue that it's mainly the refugee flow which ISIS would like to see used as a conduit for getting people into the country. Sure, it's possible for them to try to radicalize someone with existing ties to the US, but I believe that to be a smaller concern.

As you say, national security is clearly the President's domain, as set forth within the Constitution. And yes, every President, Congress person, Senator, and Justice takes an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Even so, sometimes there are disagreements over what that document says / means, or where the lines need to be drawn within the grey areas. When that happens, it is up to the Courts to weigh in on the matter. In this instance, the question needed to be reviewed by multiple panels, including that of the Supreme Court. An example of the way our government was designed to work, pure and simple. See, your last sentence makes it sound as though the President is the only one that must respect the rules set forth within the Constitution. That is just a portion of the truth, as the Constitution sets the rules for everyone, including certain leftward leaning court justices...

Agreed. Our system remains resilient...

 

The supreme Court has 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats, republicans will be the deciders on this one, like it or not

 

The Supreme Court has 9 Justices, each of which has the capacity to approach legal / Constitutional questions openly and fairly. They are looked on to employ legal reasoning to reach a decision they render. Their political views are neither here nor there. Some on the left seem to want to politicize even the courts, an idea which is not just bad but dangerous.

 

Perhaps. I would point out that were this the case, then literally all of the hyperventilation of the left is purely gratuitous. Right?

 

That seems to be the case...

 

keep believing that, the far right has stacked the deck

 

Then why did Republicans want to wait until a Republican was in office to appoint a supreme court justice? Why did everyone claim that Gorsuch had the Republican values that the Trump base wanted?

 

There is a flaw in my reasoning. Trump swore to uphold and defend the constitution to the "best of his abilities". There's his loophole.