Support NeoGAF

[F0rneus]

Disgusting. No other words.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

SLOW DOWN EVERYONE

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/trump-rejected-by-u-s-supreme-court-on-reach-of-travel-ban

The one time I let down my "complex issues aren't properly communicated in 144 characters" Twitter guard. This sounds a bit more reasonable.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Fucking dictatorship.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

"ower court ruling that would have opened the way for potentially thousands of refugees to enter the country in the coming months"

In a country of +300mil people they really care about potentially -thousands of refugees-?
Pathetic.

 

[Zyae]

scotus basically issued a stay on this:

The high court acted Wednesday on the administration’s appeal of last week’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson that required the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. Watson also vastly expanded the family relations that refugees and visitors can use to get into the country.

Until a federal court actually rules on it.

 

[Iolo]

It's the AP tweet though.

That's one reason not to make a thread based entirely on a single tweet

 

[benicillin]

Quoting again for new page:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-by-u-s-supreme-court-on-reach-of-travel-ban

Trump Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Reach of Travel Ban

Order means people with grandparents in U.S. must be admitted
Court gives Trump partial victory on refugee restrictions

The 6-3 order by the justices -- who last month let the president start restricting entry by people from six mostly Muslim countries -- means the government must accept people with grandparents, cousins and other relatives in the U.S.

The order gave Trump a partial win on a separate issue, temporarily blocking a lower court ruling that would have opened the way for potentially thousands of refugees to enter the country in the coming months. That portion of the Supreme Court order applies while the administration appeals on that issue to a federal appellate court in San Francisco.

San Francisco will be weighing in soon.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

It's the AP tweet though.

AP and the like have messed up before.

 

[Kusagari]

So basically everyone but the three shit heads that wanted to uphold the entire thing to begin with agreed with the DC Court's expansions.

This is a good thing.

 

[RumbleHumble]

That title's off. The Refugee ban was already in place, but a District Court expanded the exemptions to include Grandparents and other close family members. The Department of Justice asked for the Supreme Court to knock the District Court Order out, and the Supreme Court denied the request (although Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas say they would've granted it). That's why it's going to the 9th Circuit.

 

[Dai101]

What will the definition of a 'refugee' become?

 

[Aaron Strife]

AP and the like have messed up before.

Remember when the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare?

 

[Redd]

Supremely horrible decision.

Yup. This damn country pisses me off sometimes.

 

[studyguy]

This just means the Hawaii ruling on clarifications will stand

 

[CrunchyFrog]

"ower court ruling that would have opened the way for potentially thousands of refugees to enter the country in the coming months"

In a country of +300mil people they really care about potentially -thousands of refugees-?
Pathetic.

TBF the argument is less "our infrastucture can't possibly support a few thousand more people" and more "maybe some of these guys could possibly be terrorists probably so feh to your whole 'humanitarian crisis' mumbo jumbo"

 

[oti]

So SCOTUS grants Trump tougher requirements for refugeees but leaves door open for courts to step in.

A mod should change the title to something more fitting.

Come on, AP.

 

[thelatestmodel]

Eat a dick, Republicans

 

[GoldenEye 007]

This just means the Hawaii ruling on clarifications will stand

Yeah, AP got this wrong. Ban stays in place, as expected, but the expanded family members stays. The ban itself still there until a lower court can review.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Jesus fucking christ

Why?

Because Kennedy decided he left his balls at home for once.

 

[Abinash117]

It is not totally bad and not an outright ban.

But the justices are leaving in place a lower court order that makes it easier for travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to enter the United States.

The high court acted Wednesday on the administration's appeal of last week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson that required the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. Watson also vastly expanded the family relations that refugees and visitors can use to get into the country.

It is now easier for travelers to enter the country and I think at least if refugees have family relations they will can entire.

I think it is consistent to the last ruling stating if people from the 6 countries have close ties to the US. Appealing is going to happen to the federal court.


Looks like AP messed up.

 

[RumbleHumble]

So SCOTUS grants Trump tougher requirements for refugeees but leaves door open for courts to step in.

Nope. SCOTUS kept the EO in place until they could rule on it fully. DC said: well this EO includes more people than what you're thinking, DOJ. DOJ says,: no, the EO only includes this very small number of people and SCOTUS is gonna show you! DOJ files motion. SCOTUS says: Actually we're gonna keep what DC said in place and if you got a problem, take it up with the 9th Circuit.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Yeah, AP got this wrong. Ban stays in place, as expected, but the expanded family members stays until the lower court reviews.

Yeah, AP botched this.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

John Adams was one of our most talented and important politicians and his accomplishments were intrinsically linked to the early fate of our nation. But, in the popular history narrative, he is mostly remembered for signing the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.

It amazes me how Trump, a man so so far beneath Adams, is completely impervious to how he will be judged by future generations.

 

[Electric Eye]

Because Kennedy decided he left his balls at home for once.

No a ruling is pending on the refugee part of the order in a lower court and the SCOTUS will not override that court without its making its ruling first. This is far from done and if you are taking score it doesn't look good for any of Trumps order to be allowed.

 

[BronsonLee]

It amazes me how Trump, a man so so far beneath Adams, is completely impervious to how he will be judged by future generations.

Nah fam he's gonna get crushed

 

[GameAddict411]

People need to calm down a bit. It's not a ruling by any means, and temporary until the court hearing in October.

 

[Wilsongt]

God shed His grace on thee*

*except brown people

"...Give me youe tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free*..."

*Only if they are white and Christian

 

[Iolo]

John Adams was one of our most talented and important politicians and his accomplishments were intrinsically linked to the early fate of our nation. But, in the popular history narrative, he is mostly remembered for signing the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.

It amazes me how Trump, a man so so far beneath Adams, is completely impervious to how he will be judged by future generations.

Can't be judged by future generations if there aren't any.

 

[HellforLeather]

Yeah, I'm curious. I suppose the Supreme Court is not supposed to decide whether or not the refugee ban should exists, only whether or not it can according to existing law. Apparently it can.

This. Surpreme Court decides if something is constitutional or not and the executive branch has a lot of power over immigration. This decision isnt that surprising.

 

[Breads]

This isn't as bad as some people make it sound.

 

[Keri]

Just based on the reactions from the first page, it feels like some are confused about the role the Supreme Court plays here: They are not deciding whether the ban is morally wrong. They are deciding whether the ban is legally wrong. A finding that the President has the authority to issue a ban is not equivalent to finding a ban is good.

 

[Netherscourge]

Self-aggrandizing Tweet incoming in T-minus 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[VendettaRed07]

The SC will review the ban later this year

Media outlets will spin whatever procedural developments as some big bombshell until then.

 

[TCKaos]

To be fair, the only part of this immigration ban that was actually illegal was the exemption for minority religions.

 

[the_sun_king]

...confused now :/

Wait until October, basically.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Yeah, AP got this wrong. Ban stays in place, as expected, but the expanded family members stays. The ban itself still there until a lower court can review.

Still bad but not worse.

 

[Kill3r7]

Just based on the reactions from the first page, it feels like some are confused about the role the Supreme Court plays here: They are not deciding whether the ban is morally wrong. They are deciding whether the ban is legally wrong. A finding that the President has the authority to issue a ban is not equivalent to finding a ban is good.

This is the case on just about any public online forum, unless it is law related.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

AP's credibility should take a hit for such shoddy garbage.

 

[Amory]

Just based on the reactions from the first page, it feels like some are confused about the role the Supreme Court plays here: They are not deciding whether the ban is morally wrong. They are deciding whether the ban is legally wrong. A finding that the President has the authority to issue a ban is not equivalent to finding a ban is good.

yeah, this.

and anyway it's temporary until they make a final decision

 

[commedieu]

I've already started looting though. So stop or what?

(Burns stuff too)

 

[Skellig Gra]

Not sure how this is even new news at all based on past events.

Just based on the reactions from the first page, it feels like some are confused about the role the Supreme Court plays here: They are not deciding whether the ban is morally wrong. They are deciding whether the ban is legally wrong. A finding that the President has the authority to issue a ban is not equivalent to finding a ban is good.

Yeah exactly.

 

[Aselith]

I've already started looting though. So stop or what?

(Burns stuff too)

Probably best to just finish