• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Supreme Court allows President Trump's travel ban to go fully into effect

Dev1lXYZ

Dev1lXYZ

Member
[[url]https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/supreme-court-allows-president-trumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.html/url]

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

This is another ‘win’ for President Trump. A safer country is a good thing.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Is it a win if he had to do so through executive order or was it only a problem if Obama did it?

Not to mention that this isn't a ruling on the ban, it's a stay on the injunction.
 
pramod

pramod

Banned
Yeah, why was OP banned? It's against rules to post any pro-Trump news now?

And why ban him and then keep his thread open?

The moderation here doesn't make any sense.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Trump said the ban was temporary to give him time to figure out what's going on. It's been a year. Why hasn't he figured out what's going on yet?
 
V

Vicetrailia

Banned
Dude Abides said:
Trump said the ban was temporary to give him time to figure out what's going on. It's been a year. Why hasn't he figured out what's going on yet?
Click to expand...

Just give it a try man...I promise that it won't be permanent.

Sad thing is that this ban has no positive effects, it's useless.

Edit:

Meanwhile in Manafort land, it was found that he was ghostwriting a "Fake News" story with a Russian Intel collaborator, even in 2017. Essentially his deal with Mueller is up in jeopardy.
 
Bolivar687

Bolivar687

Banned
HStallion said:
Is it a win if he had to do so through executive order or was it only a problem if Obama did it?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this comparison because enforcement of incoming immigration is entirely within the executive powers of the presidency, whereas something like path to citizenship (assuming you're talking about DACA) feels more like it should be legislated by Congress (which it hopefully will be soon). The problem with Obama's executive orders, and even moreso with his agency rulemaking, is that they circumvented representative democracy on issues that encroach upon the role of Congress or have been entirely delegated to the states. There is an entire body of scholarship on the constitutionality of executive orders and agency rulemaking, so it always looks dirty when a President tests the boundaries but more so because of what Obama was trying to accomplish and doubly so when the ideas of his party were being consistently rejected in legislature elections, both federal and state. If people really want you to be the Police Commissioner, it doesn't mean you're also on City Council. It's also alarming that he continues to publicly weigh in on issues after he's no longer in office and regardless of how you felt about him, you should be asking yourself why no other recent President has done this before and why he's doing this now.

The legality of what Trump did here is nowhere near as controversial as it's substance. As frightening as it was for Stephen Miller to declare the powers of the president shall not be questioned, he also cited the relevant statutes down to the subsection letter. I'm not surprised at all that the travel ban continues to pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court but it is encouraging to see it go 7-2, which shows the institution is still capable of withstanding the climate of polarization, even if we still have a long way to go on judicial reform. When they first sent the case back down to Hawaii and the judge still found a way to delay its implementation by asking for clarification, it showed that the judiciary is no longer functioning like a branch of federal government as described by the constitution but instead as an extension and apparatus of a political party.

As vile as Trump may otherwise be, he was elected in part as a response to an administration that did not take militant Islam seriously, either abroad or at home. You can't appropriate the courts to circumvent the democratic process, at least not on issues that the Constitution expressly confers upon the presidency.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Bolivar687 said:
I don't agree with this comparison because enforcement of incoming immigration is entirely within the executive powers of the presidency, whereas something like path to citizenship (assuming you're talking about DACA) feels more like it should be legislated by Congress (which it hopefully will be soon). The problem with Obama's executive orders, and even moreso with his agency rulemaking, is that they circumvented representative democracy on issues that encroach upon the role of Congress or have been entirely delegated to the states. There is an entire body of scholarship on the constitutionality of executive orders and agency rulemaking, so it always looks dirty when a President tests the boundaries but more so because of what Obama was trying to accomplish and doubly so when the ideas of his party were being consistently rejected in legislature elections, both federal and state. If people really want you to be the Police Commissioner, it doesn't mean you're also on City Council. It's also alarming that he continues to publicly weigh in on issues after he's no longer in office and regardless of how you felt about him, you should be asking yourself why no other recent President has done this before and why he's doing this now.

The legality of what Trump did here is nowhere near as controversial as it's substance. As frightening as it was for Stephen Miller to declare the powers of the president shall not be questioned, he also cited the relevant statutes down to the subsection letter. I'm not surprised at all that the travel ban continues to pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court but it is encouraging to see it go 7-2, which shows the institution is still capable of withstanding the climate of polarization, even if we still have a long way to go on judicial reform. When they first sent the case back down to Hawaii and the judge still found a way to delay its implementation by asking for clarification, it showed that the judiciary is no longer functioning like a branch of federal government as described by the constitution but instead as an extension and apparatus of a political party.

As vile as Trump may otherwise be, he was elected in part as a response to an administration that did not take militant Islam seriously, either abroad or at home. You can't appropriate the courts to circumvent the democratic process, at least not on issues that the Constitution expressly confers upon the presidency.
Click to expand...

This post show a complete lack of understanding of the legal issues involved or the role of the federal judiciary. The issue was whether the Muslim ban violated the first amendment, so Miller’s citation of a statute is of little relevance, however impressive you may personally have found it. This is because, as every seventh grader knows, Congress can’t authorize an unconstitutional act.

And of course it was the state of Hawaii, not the district court, that requested clarification of the legal status of the Muslim ban. So you don’t know what you’re talking about on that score either, unsurprisingly.

As for Obama not taking Islamic terrorism seriously, that’s just Breitbart-level nonsense that bears no relationship to reality.
 
pramod

pramod

Banned
Dude Abides said:
This post show a complete lack of understanding of the legal issues involved or the role of the federal judiciary. The rissuwchere was whether the Muslim ban violated the first amendment, so Miller’s citation of a statute is of little relevance, however impressive you may personally have found it. This is because, as every seventh grader knows, Congress can’t authorize an unconstitutional act.

And of course it was the state of Hawaii, not the district court, that requested clarification of the legal status of the Muslim ban. So you don’t know what you’re talking about on that score either, unsurprisingly.

As for Obama not taking Islamic terrorism seriously, that’s just Breitbart-level nonsense that bears no relationship to reality.
Click to expand...

So how were American citizens' Constitutional rights affected by this ban?
 
llien

llien

Member
TheAtomicPile said:
*Muslim ban

I'll never understand why everyone plays along with the narrative that this is anything other than a Muslim ban. The dumbass said it himself:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?40176...ally-mount-pleasant-south-carolina&start=1830

Why can't this baby-handed pussy just call it what it is anymore? Wasn't he supposed to tell it like it is?
Click to expand...

But there are dozens of predominantly Muslim countries around the world, not 6.

The way I see it:
1) T promised to "deal with Muslims".
2) Actual implementation of the promise came down to limiting travels from a handful countries that already were on Obama's radar.
3) Some judges went beyond their area of responsibility (with seemingly good intentions)
4) Democrats are not being honest here either. Set of requirements for getting US Visa vary wildly from country to country, German's can get it at the airport in US, Kirghiz (former Soviet republic, one of the poorest) has next o 0 chances of getting it.


PS
Why ban OP?
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
pramod said:
When did the Supreme Court ever said the Constitution applied to non-Citizens that were not within the borders of the USA?
Click to expand...

Uh, Boumediene v. Bush? Is your strategy here just to keep adding qualifiers everytime you are proven wrong? Also, dont ask me questions you can answer yourself by a minute on google. I’ve indulged you thus far but I’m not interested in being your tutor. If you think you have an argument, make it.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Bolivar687 said:
I don't agree with this comparison because enforcement of incoming immigration is entirely within the executive powers of the presidency, whereas something like path to citizenship (assuming you're talking about DACA) feels more like it should be legislated by Congress (which it hopefully will be soon). The problem with Obama's executive orders, and even moreso with his agency rulemaking, is that they circumvented representative democracy on issues that encroach upon the role of Congress or have been entirely delegated to the states. There is an entire body of scholarship on the constitutionality of executive orders and agency rulemaking, so it always looks dirty when a President tests the boundaries but more so because of what Obama was trying to accomplish and doubly so when the ideas of his party were being consistently rejected in legislature elections, both federal and state. If people really want you to be the Police Commissioner, it doesn't mean you're also on City Council. It's also alarming that he continues to publicly weigh in on issues after he's no longer in office and regardless of how you felt about him, you should be asking yourself why no other recent President has done this before and why he's doing this now.

The legality of what Trump did here is nowhere near as controversial as it's substance. As frightening as it was for Stephen Miller to declare the powers of the president shall not be questioned, he also cited the relevant statutes down to the subsection letter. I'm not surprised at all that the travel ban continues to pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court but it is encouraging to see it go 7-2, which shows the institution is still capable of withstanding the climate of polarization, even if we still have a long way to go on judicial reform. When they first sent the case back down to Hawaii and the judge still found a way to delay its implementation by asking for clarification, it showed that the judiciary is no longer functioning like a branch of federal government as described by the constitution but instead as an extension and apparatus of a political party.

As vile as Trump may otherwise be, he was elected in part as a response to an administration that did not take militant Islam seriously, either abroad or at home. You can't appropriate the courts to circumvent the democratic process, at least not on issues that the Constitution expressly confers upon the presidency.
Click to expand...

Yet again this is someone reading into a post far too much when I'm just stating Trump is an incredible hypocrite with no moral foundation. He's a lot of other things as well but if he has called Obama or Hillary out on something, its almost a given Trump will do the very the thing he was ranting about and in a far more egregious manner.
 
Bolivar687

Bolivar687

Banned
Dude Abides said:
This post show a complete lack of understanding of the legal issues involved or the role of the federal judiciary. The issue was whether the Muslim ban violated the first amendment, so Miller’s citation of a statute is of little relevance, however impressive you may personally have found it. This is because, as every seventh grader knows, Congress can’t authorize an unconstitutional act.
Click to expand...

The first amendment arguments are entirely fictitious, which is why the Supreme Court will continue rejecting them along bipartisan lines.

This is the first I'm hearing that 8 USC § 1182(f) is unconstitutional.

And of course it was the state of Hawaii, not the district court, that requested clarification of the legal status of the Muslim ban. So you don’t know what you’re talking about on that score either, unsurprisingly.
Click to expand...

You're playing games with semantics - the request for clarification went to the district judge first, for which he then deferred to the Supreme Court. He had already been told to do his job as a judge and instead used his office to further the gamesmanship of the Democratic party.

As for Obama not taking Islamic terrorism seriously, that’s just Breitbart-level nonsense that bears no relationship to reality.
Click to expand...

T3C4jNt_d.jpg

Source

You might not agree with the sentiment (I'm not sure I would either) but you can't reasonably deny it's one of the reasons voters went for Trump.

Dude Abides said:
Uh, Boumediene v. Bush? Is your strategy here just to keep adding qualifiers everytime you are proven wrong? Also, dont ask me questions you can answer yourself by a minute on google. I’ve indulged you thus far but I’m not interested in being your tutor. If you think you have an argument, make it.
Click to expand...

Boumediene v Bush was about prisoners rights for military captives at an American detention center. The case was expressly decided because the physical location was de facto subject to US sovereignty. In reality, a minute on Google is more likely to turn up cases like Verdugo-Urquidez, which very expressly confirms that nonresident aliens on foreign soil do not have Constitutional rights.

You're grossly misrepresenting the law to perpetuate ad hominem attacks upon your fellow posters.

HStallion said:
Yet again this is someone reading into a post far too much when I'm just stating Trump is an incredible hypocrite with no moral foundation. He's a lot of other things as well but if he has called Obama or Hillary out on something, its almost a given Trump will do the very the thing he was ranting about and in a far more egregious manner.
Click to expand...

That was my point - he's not really doing the same thing, let alone in a far more egregious manner. If you don't want your ideas to be scrutinized, you shouldn't post them on a discussion forum.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Bolivar687 said:
That was my point - he's not really doing the same thing, let alone in a far more egregious manner. If you don't want your ideas to be scrutinized, you shouldn't post them on a discussion forum.
Click to expand...

So by side stepping my point you scrutinized it? You and I are talking about very different things. You're justifying what he's done as if that matters when I'm calling him out for his double talk bull shit in the first place. I don't give a shit what his reason is for doing what he does, and let's be honest it boils down to "winning" in most cases, but that has little to do with the fact that he is everything he called out Obama and Hillary for. I don't give a shit why he's doing it, its the fact it's been done and continues to happen.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Bolivar687 said:
The first amendment arguments are entirely fictitious, which is why the Supreme Court will continue rejecting them along bipartisan lines.

This is the first I'm hearing that 8 USC § 1182(f) is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

How can an argument be "fictitious"? This makes no sense. The arguments were made and accepted by several appeals courts. And, of course, you don't even understand this latest SC ruling, which simply lifted the stay and did not address the merits.

Nobody argues that 8 USC 1182(f) is unconstitutional, although if you think I'm going to be impressed that you were able to google the USCA I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.


You're playing games with semantics - the request for clarification went to the district judge first, for which he then deferred to the Supreme Court. He had already been told to do his job as a judge and instead used his office to further the gamesmanship of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

More ridiculous nonsense. There is nothing suspect about a District Judge declining to clarify an order he did not issue. Just because you see Hillary Clinton lurking behind every bush does not make it so.

T3C4jNt_d.jpg

Source

You might not agree with the sentiment (I'm not sure I would either) but you can't reasonably deny it's one of the reasons voters went for Trump.
Click to expand...

Your assertion was that Obama was soft on terrorism, not that a large number of mouth-breathing idiots thought he was and therefore voted for Trump. The latter of course is widely known and not controversial.

Boumediene v Bush was about prisoners rights for military captives at an American detention center. The case was expressly decided because the physical location was de facto subject to US sovereignty. In reality, a minute on Google is more likely to turn up cases like Verdugo-Urquidez, which very expressly confirms that nonresident aliens on foreign soil do not have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Actually it confirms only that the fourth amendment specifically does not apply to searches of nonresident aliens on foreign soil. It does not stand for the broader proposition that only citizens have constitutional rights, which is what the poster I replied to was suggesting. And, of course, resident aliens were affected by the Muslim ban, at least initially, so your argument is neither here nor there. I can see why you'd try to slip the residency qualifier in since it's not disputed by anyone who knows anything about the constitution that noncitizens have a wide range of constitutional rights, but it isn't the question that pramod asked.

You're grossly misrepresenting the law to perpetuate ad hominem attacks upon your fellow posters.
Click to expand...

No, I'm representing the law accurately so as to correct the ignorant assertions of certain posters who try to play lawyer on the internet but lack the knowledge necessary to do so effectively.
 
Phoenix RISING

Phoenix RISING

Banned
Battlechili1 said:
That back and forth is something else.
You'd think one of them would've just quit or something but they just kept insulting each other.
Click to expand...

Not enough mods to bring out the water hose, lol.

Anyway, on the topic at hand, was it incorrect that I read that the ruling was a stay rather than an allowance?
 
N

nephilimdj

Member
Good thing Israel lobbying is fine unlike Russia, pushing more Iran sactions, banning random muslim countries is all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
4K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Australia plans to ban children from social media
2 3 4
160
7K
Cyberpunkd replied
US Supreme Court refuses Epic bid to let App Store order take effect in Apple case
2 3 4
177
11K
SmokedMeat replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
11K
Topher replied
Top Bottom