All Eyes on SCOTUS Today

[IAMX 3,055]

Not that I think it matters much in terms of Trumps ban being upheld in the end, but out of principle..

 

Trump travel ban: GOP lawmakers want Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from case

 

Twelve House Republicans signed a letter calling for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the upcoming travel ban case due to her comments about President Trump during the election.

In the letter, the congressmen call for Ginsburg to recuse herself in the case International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump. The case centers on President Trump's travel ban, which seeks to restrict refugee settlement in the U.S. as well as prohibit travel to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Signed this letter to Justice Ginsburg demanding her recusal from cases involving the Trump Admin due to her previous comments #SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/pXzYuv5gKi

— Rep. Jeff Duncan (@RepJeffDuncan) June 26, 2017

The congressmen argued Ginsburg's previous public comments about Trump, which included calling him a "faker" and saying he has an "ego," merited her recusal from the case.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/trump-travel-ban-gop-lawmakers-want-ruth-bader-ginsburg-to-recuse-herself-from-case.html

 

[yuna628 9,665]

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban from Muslim-Majority Countries

 

Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-trump-appeal-travel-ban-block.html

 

Lefties were told that the EO was perfectly legal.. they think the 9th can re-interpret the Constitution as they see fit. WRONG. Again.

 

If it were that much an issue, the injunction would have been kept. This shows unlike the 9th circuit, SCOTUS understands the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

So next SCOTUS calendar year starting in the Fall of this year it will be taken up.

This is procedural and to be expected. It seems the media like to puff up such events as some sort of bearing on the eventuality of the case. It doesn't work that way.

If anything this has put the ban back into the proper jurisdiction of constraints for the government. In that it now only applies to new persons applying for visas, and is greatly restricted to not include any “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” They go into listing a few of these, which doesn't just apply to those going for marriage or spouse visas, but work and study visas too. That's a lot of visas still allowable and not prevented from entering the US. I like this idea and am overall pleased. Moreover while there seems to be a few judges willing to go in favor of the government's case, there were several republican nominees that were not buying it. That does provide some clues to the future, and I am confident that the ultimate decision won't be as cut and dry as these hyping-headlines make it. The WH and Trump may spin that this is a victory for them, it is absolutely not.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, yuna628 said:

This is procedural and to be expected. It seems the media like to puff up such events as some sort of bearing on the eventuality of the case. It doesn't work that way.

If anything this has put the ban back into the proper jurisdiction of constraints for the government. In that it now only applies to new persons applying for visas, and is greatly restricted to not include any “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” They go into listing a few of these, which doesn't just apply to those going for marriage or spouse visas, but work and study visas too. That's a lot of visas still allowable and not prevented from entering the US. I like this idea and am overall pleased. Moreover while there seems to be a few judges willing to go in favor of the government's case, there were several republican nominees that were not buying it. That does provide some clues to the future, and I am confident that the ultimate decision won't be as cut and dry as these hyping-headlines make it. The WH and Trump may spin that this is a victory for them, it is absolutely not.

That spin is so hard I can feel the breeze from here 

[yuna628 9,665]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

That spin is so hard I can feel the breeze from here 

What I've just said isn't spin man. Read it for yourself:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

44 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I wonder if the MDL echo chamber  took a long weekend 

We are all out looking for real jobs now that Obama care is gonna be cancelled

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What I've just said isn't spin man. Read it for yourself:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

that's a rhetorical request,  NB wont read that.

Edited June 26, 2017 by ccneat

[jg121783 3,909]

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

Not a good day for the 2nd amendment though..  SCOTUS decides not to hear either United States v. Binderup or Peruta v. California this coming court year. What's gonna result is a lot of lefty legislation that will try and take things further, SCOTUS finally hearing it, and smacking them all down.

I don't know much about these cases other than what I read here (will have to read up on them later when I have time) but in the right to bear arms extending outside your property is a no brainer. I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says the right to bear arms is a right that can only be exercised on private property. As far as felons owning guns goes I can certainly understand restricting violent felons from owning guns but there are some non violent felons that I just can't see a legitimate reason to bar them from owning guns.

[yuna628 9,665]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

thats a rhetorical request,  NB wont read that.

It's a shame. SCOTUS always uses such beautiful words. The best words even. They deserve to be read instead of butchered by flashy headlines and poorly understood paragraphs. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by yuna628

[IAMX 3,055]

18 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What I've just said isn't spin man. Read it for yourself:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Actually the criticism levied on the 4th circuit was completely validated by SCOTUS here, invalidating the 4th's arguments about Trump's campaign comments, and SCOTUS slammed the 9th and 4th for expanding their block of Trump's ban of people with "bona fide" relationships to those who didn't have bona fide relationships as well.

 

Quote

The Ninth Circuit, like the Fourth Circuit, concluded that the injunction should bar enforcement of these provisions across the board, because they would violate the INA “in all applications.”

Quote

The Government seeks review on several issues. In IRAP, the Government argues that respondent Doe lacks standing to challenge §2(c).* The Government also contends that Doe’s Establishment Clause claim fails on the merits. In its view, the Fourth Circuit should not have asked whether §2(c) has a primarily religious purpose.The court instead should have upheld EO–2 because it rests on the “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification of protecting national security.

Quote

In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail comments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on itsface—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose. At the very least, the Government argues, the injunction

Quote

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member,like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim- ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

Quote

The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap. In our view, the equitable balance struck above applies in this context as well. An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. See supra, at 9–11; Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).The Government’s application to stay the injunction with respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part.

 

This is a very big win for Trump's EO, and the court has played it's hand already at how it intends to rule in October.. it's clear they side with the President on the ban and ability to broadly place bans on foreigners entering the US, and side with the people who already had an explicitly "bona fide" reason to be in the US. There's no ambiguity here, the victory is Trump's.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[yuna628 9,665]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Actually the criticism levied on the 4th circuit was completely validated by SCOTUS here, invalidating the 4th's arguments about Trump's campaign comments, and SCOTUS slammed the 9th and 4th for expanding their block of Trump's ban of people with "bona fide" relationships to those who didn't have bona fide relationships as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a very big win for Trump's EO, and the court has played it's hand already at how it intends to rule in October.. it's clear they side with the President on the ban, and side with the people who already had an explicitly "bona fide" reason to be in the US. There's no ambiguity here, the victory is Trump's.

The ban originally applied to those with bona fide reasons and those without bona fide reasons. Currently based on the SCOTUS findings for now, they concluded the government had no basis to apply that ban to those that are bona fide and they are not allowed to do that now and several of the injunctions against the EO remain in place. The WH can keep telling themselves this is a victory, but it is not by any means. Those with bona fide reasons for being here can enter, those without may not. That's how it should be.

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

The ban originally applied to those with bona fide reasons and those without bona fide reasons. Currently based on the SCOTUS findings for now, they concluded the government had no basis to apply that ban to those that are bona fide and they are not allowed to do that now and several of the injunctions against the EO remain in place. The WH can keep telling themselves this is a victory, but it is not by any means. Those with bona fide reasons for being here can enter, those without may not. That's how it should be.

LOL. You're merely echoing what I said, then stating the opposite conclusion -- does Trump's victory make you mad? The injunction on the ban was declared too broad, if your eyes can read correctly, hence why SCOTUS pointed out, in my very quotes, where the 9th and 4th were wrong. Hence why Trump's ban stays in effect with the injunction placed for those who have a bona fide reason to be in the US.. and that's an extremely narrow list of people. They specifically stated the injunction on the ban was lifted and reiterated the powers of the President to broadly ban people. It's most definitely a Trump victory. If you want to think in absolutes, and lie to yourself, be my guest. It's a great day for national security.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[IAMX 3,055]

21 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I don't know much about these cases other than what I read here (will have to read up on them later when I have time) but in the right to bear arms extending outside your property is a no brainer. I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says the right to bear arms is a right that can only be exercised on private property. As far as felons owning guns goes I can certainly understand restricting violent felons from owning guns but there are some non violent felons that I just can't see a legitimate reason to bar them from owning guns.

I'm no fan of felons, but I think of it like this.. 

 

If they're committed a crime, they are to be punished. If the punishment includes circumstances where they aren't jailed, I can understand limitations to their rights. However, if they have served the full time of their sentence, there's no reason to be limiting their rights henceforth unless the government can show just cause, or high likelihood of danger to the public, in which case, that person shouldn't be released to begin with. Someone that has done their full sentence should not have their rights perpetually suspended, that includes voting, the first amendment, second amendment, fourth amendment, etc.

[yuna628 9,665]

15 minutes ago, IAMX said:

LOL. You're merely echoing what I said, then stating the opposite conclusion -- does Trump's victory make you mad? The injunction on the ban was declared too broad, if your eyes can read correctly, hence why SCOTUS pointed out, in my very quotes, where the 9th and 4th were wrong. Hence why Trump's ban stays in effect with the injunction placed for those who have a bona fide reason to be in the US.. and that's an extremely narrow list of people. They specifically stated the injunction on the ban was lifted and reiterated the powers of the President to broadly ban people. It's most definitely a Trump victory. If you want to think in absolutes, and lie to yourself, be my guest.

Why should SCOTUS' findings make me mad? I have already stated I am pleased by the ruling and findings to properly restrict where the government can and can't act. We're saying two different things. I take a logic and reasoned approach. Alan D. just about said as much a few minutes ago that this is no cut-and-dry victory for the admin. The court is saying that bona fides have a case on merits and the government has a case on the merits for non bona fides. The types of bona fides are quite broad actually, and it did not make a  finding that the President had powers to 'broadly' ban as you claim here (that will come during the actual case). So while SCOTUS determined the lower court's findings were too broad it also found the EO was also too broad. The dissent rightly concludes thus:

 

Quote

Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.

The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid" [the ban][..] 

This will be quite a nuanced decision I think. And over the course of the case I hope the justices will learn that immigration officials already have a process for determining who has legit bona fide reasons for entry. What the court will have to really think about is how to rule on this to avoid continuing litigation, where judges must decide if the immigration officer has made the correct decision. I think we already have good precedent to avoid that and the dissent's concern will be avoided.

 

I'm not the one lying to myself here.

Edited June 26, 2017 by yuna628

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

Why should SCOTUS' findings make me mad? I have already stated I am pleased by the ruling and findings to properly restrict where the government can and can't act. We're saying two different things. I take a logic and reasoned approach. Alan D. just about said as much a few minutes ago that this is no cut-and-dry victory for the admin. The court is saying that bona fides have a case on merits and the government has a case on the merits for non bona fides. The types of bona fides are quite broad actually, and it made not finding that the President had powers to 'broadly' ban as you claim here. So while SCOTUS determined the lower court's findings were too broad it also found the EO was also too broad. The dissent rightly concludes thus:

 

This will be quite a nuanced decision I think. And over the course of the case I hope the justices will learn that immigration officials already have a process for determining who has legit bona fide reasons for entry. What the court will have to really think about is how to rule on this to avoid continuing litigation, where judges must decide if the immigration officer has made the correct decision. I think we already have good precedent to avoid that and the dissent's concern will be avoided.

 

I'm not the one lying to myself here.

It's funny that you cite one part of a fraction of a partly "dissenting" opinion of a per curiam decision (meaning 9-0) from Justice Thomas and contest that you're not lying to yourself. Keep trying.

 

And while I doubt October's decision will be as unanimous here, there's no doubt that Trump will wind up victorious at minimum in a similar manner here today.

[yuna628 9,665]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

It's funny that you cite one part of a fraction of a partly "dissenting" opinion of a per curiam decision (meaning 9-0) from Justice Thomas and contest that you're not lying to yourself. Keep trying.

 

And while I doubt October's decision will be as unanimous here, there's no doubt that Trump will wind up victorious at minimum in a similar manner here today.

Keep trying what? I get the strangest feeling you believe the rest of the posters on this forum (or perhaps the rest of the people on the planet) owe it to you to prove you wrong (a task akin to tapping on a brick wall). No one has to. But the constant accusatory tone you take whenever someone disagrees with your opinion on a subject says a lot. I'm happy with the finding and I'm telling you so. You'd rather accuse me of being mad. If you cannot make a reasonable argument without such silly accusations - perhaps you are mad? It's just a forum of different people and opinions. The findings of the case (it can't even be called that right now because the real case will be later) are completely sound and are nowhere near to what you and the media are making it out to be.