All Eyes on SCOTUS Today

[Dashinka 24,109]

32 minutes 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 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:

 

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.

Will this (the exception to the ban) only apply to those that have already obtained a valid visa with bona fide connections?  What I mean is would it impact the issuance of visas to people in these countries with connections or not?

[yuna628 9,646]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Will this (the exception to the ban) only apply to those that have already obtained a valid visa with bona fide connections?  What I mean is would it impact the issuance of visas to people in these countries with connections or not?

They don't really clarify that position of yet. IMO, those who are in the middle of the process (passed all checks and heading to interview) or had the visa issued are unaffected, this could be interpreted broadly though and imply that those that are found to have any bona fide reason to enter are not subject to a ban and we'll probably see some guidance on the subject I would think. But honestly isn't that what immigration officers and the process determines anyway? That's what made the EOs so very sloppy to begin with, the broadness caused a lot of problems and a lot of hurt. We need smart proactive reform, not clunky reactive junk.

[IAMX 3,055]

.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

They don't really clarify that position of yet. IMO, those who are in the middle of the process (passed all checks and heading to interview) or had the visa issued are unaffected, this could be interpreted broadly though and imply that those that are found to have any bona fide reason to enter are not subject to a ban and we'll probably see some guidance on the subject I would think. But honestly isn't that what immigration officers and the process determines anyway? That's what made the EOs so very sloppy to begin with, the broadness caused a lot of problems and a lot of hurt. We need smart proactive reform, not clunky reactive junk.

This is a lie, they did clarify, they lifted the injunction issued by lower courts into the ban. The people it doesn't apply to are those in the narrow aspect that have a bona fide relationship to the US (with a credible claim). In the court's opinion, you can go back to my quotes last page because I quoted it there in response to your link to the pdf, they stated the injunction was far too broad and included the ban, which they lifted.

 

So Trump's ban moves forward. Now, moving on from the people who are in denial..

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[Dashinka 24,109]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

They don't really clarify that position of yet. IMO, those who are in the middle of the process (passed all checks and heading to interview) or had the visa issued are unaffected, this could be interpreted broadly though and imply that those that are found to have any bona fide reason to enter are not subject to a ban and we'll probably see some guidance on the subject I would think. But honestly isn't that what immigration officers and the process determines anyway? That's what made the EOs so very sloppy to begin with, the broadness caused a lot of problems and a lot of hurt. We need smart proactive reform, not clunky reactive junk.

Wasn't that the biggest reason for the EO in the first place that the countries listed lacked the proper bureaucracy to allow a potential visa applicant to be vetted properly?  You are right, the IOs constantly refuse visas (especially visitor visas) to people even if they have ties to someone in the country.  It will be interesting to see what happens as the 90 day period would expire prior to October, does Trump extend the EO, or does it expire and then SCOTUS just lets it pass.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wasn't that the biggest reason for the EO in the first place that the countries listed lacked the proper bureaucracy to allow a potential visa applicant to be vetted properly?  You are right, the IOs constantly refuse visas (especially visitor visas) to people even if they have ties to someone in the country.  It will be interesting to see what happens as the 90 day period would expire prior to October, does Trump extend the EO, or does it expire and then SCOTUS just lets it pass.

Knowing Trump, he extends. It's not difficult to have a compelling reason to justify the ban to satisfy SCOTUS as per their ruling today. They rejected the lower courts rulings that focused on his tweets/campaign rhetoric.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[Dashinka 24,109]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Knowing Trump, he extends. It's not difficult to have a compelling reason to justify the ban to satisfy SCOTUS as per their ruling today. They rejected the lower courts rulings that focused on his tweets/campaign rhetoric.

I always thought it was wrong for the circuit courts to focus so much on the campaign rhetoric.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

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

LOl for once we totally agree on something 

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I always thought it was wrong for the circuit courts to focus so much on the campaign rhetoric.

And SCOTUS agrees.. saying the lower courts overstepped their bounds in considering these things while ignoring the unbiased information that Trump provided that actually came from prior administrations as Trump argued. 

 

You can see a theme here about Trump being right and the lower courts, especially the 9th, being wrong.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[yuna628 9,646]

44 minutes ago, IAMX said:

This is a lie, they did clarify, they lifted the injunction issued by lower courts into the ban. The people it doesn't apply to are those in the narrow aspect that have a bona fide relationship to the US (with a credible claim). In the court's opinion, you can go back to my quotes last page because I quoted it there in response to your link to the pdf, they stated the injunction was far too broad and included the ban, which they lifted.

 

So Trump's ban moves forward. Now, moving on from the people who are in denial..

Dear lord....  Brick wall.

42 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wasn't that the biggest reason for the EO in the first place that the countries listed lacked the proper bureaucracy to allow a potential visa applicant to be vetted properly?  You are right, the IOs constantly refuse visas (especially visitor visas) to people even if they have ties to someone in the country.  It will be interesting to see what happens as the 90 day period would expire prior to October, does Trump extend the EO, or does it expire and then SCOTUS just lets it pass.

That's one of the reasons. But we know there are other countries not banned that also have the lack of bureaucracy and some that were banned that have even stronger vetting than what was claimed.. But we also know from experience on this forum that AP from the majorities of these countries can leave people in limbo for YEARS. I think we could all agree months and years of vetting after your interview is pretty extreme. Immigration officers are given the ability to deny all the time, if they need more tools to check that's fine too. But an additional 90 days isn't going to do much when someone has already been in line for years, is it? Furthermore, we've still seen nothing from the government how an additional 90 days improves the vetting process. I think transparency is a good thing don't you? The 90 day ban was so that the government could improve that process. Well we're almost at the end (unless he extends it which he could), but we don't have much to show for how such vetting is getting improved and is going to make us so much safer? This is a victory for those with bona fide reasons, and the government should be ashamed they ever tried that nonsense to begin with. I just hope the officers issuing visas are empowered to continue to make determinations as to bona fide status, only to have the immigrant get caught up at the CBP once again. There was far too much confusion and lack of standards across the board.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by yuna628

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Dear lord....  Brick wall.

That's one of the reasons. But we know there are other countries not banned that also have the lack of bureaucracy and some that were banned that have even stronger vetting than what was claimed.. But we also know from experience on this forum that AP from the majorities of these countries can leave people in limbo for YEARS. I think we could all agree months and years of vetting after your interview is pretty extreme. Immigration officers are given the ability to deny all the time, if they need more tools to check that's fine too. But an additional 90 days isn't going to do much when someone has already been in line for years, is it? Furthermore, we've still seen nothing from the government how an additional 90 days improves the vetting process. I think transparency is a good thing don't you? The 90 day ban was so that the government could improve that process. Well we're almost at the end (unless he extends it which he could), but we don't have much to show for how such vetting is getting improved and is going to make us so much safer?

 

 

Trump spent much of the time that could have been used improving the process in either fighting the idiotic 9th and 4th circuits, or trying to implement a travel ban that would satisfy them -- although clearly nothing would. I hope he makes it for the entire 4 years (or better yet, 8 years) to give the US ample time to revise how things are done, and make vetting from Muslim countries (and countries that were dumb enough to take refugees in without a worthwhile vetting process) take that much longer.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[yuna628 9,646]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Trump spent much of the time that could have been used improving the process in either fighting the idiotic 9th and 4th circuits, or trying to implement a travel ban that would satisfy them -- although clearly nothing would. I hope he makes it for the entire 4 years to give the US ample time to revise how things are done, and make vetting from Muslim countries take that much longer.

The heads of the departments and those operating in the DHS, USCIS etc don't stop reviewing the process simply because of the previous rulings on the cases. And we've already seen document dumps showing their search for extra measures isn't coming up with many fresh ideas. Think of how much time he could spent using his brain to magically fix everything if he stopped watching the tv and got off of twitter hmm? Trump doesn't make any decision regarding this until the DHS comes back to offer their findings.

 

If you need 4 years to correct something.. you either got a problem or you just don't care about being efficient or fair.

Edited June 26, 2017 by yuna628

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

The heads of the departments and those operating in the DHS, USCIS etc don't stop reviewing the process simply because of the previous rulings on the cases. And we've already seen document dumps showing their search for extra measures isn't coming up with many fresh ideas. Think of how much time he could spent using his brain to magically fix everything if he stopped watching the tv and got off of twitter hmm? Trump doesn't make any decision regarding this until the DHS comes back to offer their findings.

I'm not opposed to an indefinite ban from every Muslim country (and refugee countries where the person they took in is from a Muslim country) under the guise of waiting for Congress to be useful and either find something better or implement an outright ban via legislation. Trump's version will do for now, especially if he's smart enough to extend it as long as he can.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[IAMX 3,055]

Lost in all of this is that neither Kennedy nor any other Justice announced their retirement for the SCOTUS calendar year starting October.

 

Missed out on a sequel to Day After Tomorrow where lefty tears flood the coastal regions.

Edited June 26, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

 

The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

The justices by a 7-2 vote turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended that most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area were being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The justices let stand a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the “2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, said the court's refusal to hear the appeal "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right.”

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-handguns-california-20170626-story.html