Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NightHawkeye" data-source="post: 74291914" data-attributes="member: 265226"><p>From the "<em>Restoring rule of law, one case at a time</em>", files: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-green-lights-trumps-immigration-asylum-ban" target="_blank">Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions</a></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House's ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>...</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the policy's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented</em>.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/scotus_delivers_big_trump_win_and_implicit_rebuke_to_san_francisco_federal_judges_50state_injunction_on_asylum_rules_change.html" target="_blank">SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge's 50-state injunction on asylum rules change</a></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he doesn't agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can enforce their judgments only within the territory of their jurisdictions, not nationally.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><strong><span style="color: #0000ff">The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices — Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level</span></strong>.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><img src="http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/images/graemlins/default/thumbsup.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":oldthumbsup:" title="Old Thumbsup :oldthumbsup:" data-shortname=":oldthumbsup:" /></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NightHawkeye, post: 74291914, member: 265226"] From the "[I]Restoring rule of law, one case at a time[/I]", files: [URL='http://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-green-lights-trumps-immigration-asylum-ban']Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions[/URL] [INDENT][I]In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House's ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there. ... The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the policy's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts. President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.” Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented[/I].[/INDENT] [url=www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/scotus_delivers_big_trump_win_and_implicit_rebuke_to_san_francisco_federal_judges_50state_injunction_on_asylum_rules_change.html]SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge's 50-state injunction on asylum rules change[/url] [I][/I] [INDENT][I]There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he doesn't agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can enforce their judgments only within the territory of their jurisdictions, not nationally. [B][COLOR=#0000ff]The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices — Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level[/COLOR][/B].[/I][/INDENT] [I] :oldthumbsup:[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions
Top
Bottom