The President wins in the Supreme Court

[Albion]

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it."

 

[Dave-W]

Cool. But are we not well past that "90 days?"

 

[Albion]

Cool. But are we not well past that "90 days?"

The complete AP release is found on the Drudge Report (and I suppose elsewhere).

 

[Tree of Life]

Well Neil Gorsuch (Gorsovitch?!) is probably a Russian.

 

[LoAmmi]

Elections have consequences.

 

[dgiharris]

Cool. But are we not well past that "90 days?"

what do facts and data matter?

The Muslim travel ban from those countries is not about keeping us safe. No. It is about the "show" and "theater" of keeping us safe so Trump can thump his chest and proclaim "See, I'm keeping my promises"...
If we could go back in time to 2001 and implement Trump's travel ban then 9/11 still would have happened.

What say Trumpers about that?

 

[Rion]

Cool. But are we not well past that "90 days?"

I think the idea is that any future bans would be kosher now.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it."

Well, you've got half the truth in your title: SCOTUS is lifting some of the injunction on the Muslim Travel Ban while it considers the full case in the fall. Of course, they had to fix it: The ban now only applies "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

Of course, the smart money is that they're hoping that it'll all be moot by the time it gets to them -- Trump always claimed it would be a temporary ban... if his word is worth anything at all at this point, it'll be lifted before SCOTUS gets at it.

 

[Albion]

What say Trumpers about that?

answer: We're used to reading "sour grapes" posts.

 

[Dave-W]

It is about the "show" and "theater" of keeping us safe so Trump can thump his chest and proclaim "See, I'm keeping my promises"...

Unfortunately I think there is a lot of truth to that.

But the thing is, an almost identical travel ban was passed by congress in the wake of 9-11 that both Bush jr and Obama refused to enforce .....

 

[Dave-W]

I think the idea is that any future bans would be kosher now.

Including the one passed by congress in 2002?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Cool. But are we not well past that "90 days?"

It can't be over until it starts. Additionally, when the Supreme Court actually takes up the case, the 90 days will be over and any ruling will have no effect on the ban at all. That being said, I highly suspect that the final ruling will simply endorse the legality of the actions the Supremes are now not standing in the way of the Executive Branch taking.

 

[dgiharris]

answer: We're used to reading "sour grapes" posts.

I don't understand...????

A tragic event XYZ happens.

Trump says, "Because of XYZ I want to institute action QRS to protect us..."

Yet, if we could go back in time and implement QRS it would not have protected us from XYZ

So I ask the question, how do you feel about that?

ANd your response, We're used to reading "sour grapes" posts???

 

[Rion]

Including the one passed by congress in 2002?

Basically, they're saying that the Executive Branch has the power to do these sort of bans.

 

[Albion]

But the thing is, an almost identical travel ban was passed by congress in the wake of 9-11 that both Bush jr and Obama refused to enforce .....

But this was not legislation passed by the Congress. It was an executive order, therefore we may assume--may we not--that the president meant it?

 

[Dave-W]

It can't be over until it starts.

I thought it was from the date he signed it.

 

[Dave-W]

These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists.

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.​

This passed BOTH houses of congress unanimously.

 

[dgiharris]

Unfortunately I think there is a lot of truth to that.

But the thing is, an almost identical travel ban was passed by congress in the wake of 9-11 that both Bush jr and Obama refused to enforce .....

My problem with politics as of late is that it feels we have forgotten what being an American is all about...

We are supposed to be the "Land of the Free... The Home of the Brave..."

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty Reads: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

and then there is the most powerful passage in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

and yet, there are those in this country who keep arguing for the passage of bills and laws that are anathema to the above. All the while screaming that they are the real Americans and the rest of us are trying to destroy the country...

 

[Albion]

Yet, if we could go back in time and implement QRS it would not have protected us from XYZ

So I ask the question, how do you feel about that?

ANd your response, We're used to reading "sour grapes" posts???

That's right. I didn't see anything in the post that could be taken seriously, but I did note the style or tone of it. That's what my answer referred to.

 

[Albion]

I thought it was from the date he signed it.

The news release suggests a new start, but I'd expect that other media will shortly give more information about the start date and, also, about which justices voted for the decision (if that is to be released; it isn't always done). The vote on letting the Missouri church get its share of state funding for playground equipment, which was also decided today, was 7-2.

EDIT: I just heard that the Supreme Court's order was unanimous.