-
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 rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
- Thread starter xStoyax
- Start date
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban.
The ruling was 5-4 along partisan lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority.
This is the third version of the travel ban. It was issued in September -- after previous bans had ricocheted through the courts -- and restricts entry from seven countries to varying degrees: Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela. Chad was originally on the list but it was recently removed after having met baseline security requirements.
"The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority," Roberts wrote.
Challengers, including the state of Hawaii, argued that the proclamation exceeded the President's authority under immigration law as well as the Constitution. They also used Trump's statements during the campaign, when he called for a ban on travel from all Muslim-majority countries, but Roberts dismissed those concerns.
"Plaintiffs argue that this President's words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition," Roberts wrote. "But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."
I unfortunately have to agree with this ruling, particularly as it appears there are security and criteria which can be met to remove the ban which does not extend to a specific religion. While you are to look at the "intent" of an action. It's clear the new ban was written in such a way as to make it so that any country could gain clearance after meeting certain baseline security requirements.
The question I would then pose is whether or not the baseline requirements are fairly evaluated per country. Which, if not, could invoke another lawsuit ensuring non-discriminatory evaluation practices.
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban.
The ruling was 5-4 along partisan lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority.
This is the third version of the travel ban. It was issued in September -- after previous bans had ricocheted through the courts -- and restricts entry from seven countries to varying degrees: Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela. Chad was originally on the list but it was recently removed after having met baseline security requirements.
"The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority," Roberts wrote.
Challengers, including the state of Hawaii, argued that the proclamation exceeded the President's authority under immigration law as well as the Constitution. They also used Trump's statements during the campaign, when he called for a ban on travel from all Muslim-majority countries, but Roberts dismissed those concerns.
"Plaintiffs argue that this President's words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition," Roberts wrote. "But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."
I unfortunately have to agree with this ruling, particularly as it appears there are security and criteria which can be met to remove the ban which does not extend to a specific religion. While you are to look at the "intent" of an action. It's clear the new ban was written in such a way as to make it so that any country could gain clearance after meeting certain baseline security requirements.
The question I would then pose is whether or not the baseline requirements are fairly evaluated per country. Which, if not, could invoke another lawsuit ensuring non-discriminatory evaluation practices.
Last edited:
TheLaughingStock
Member
The hilarious thing is watching people say that a "moderate" like Garland would've reversed all of these "conservative" 5-4 decisions. It's clear people just want to stack the court to push their political agenda.
Last edited:
Bolivar687
Banned
Dirty little secret that every lawyer knows, whether they're willing to admit it or not - nothing about any of the travel bans were remotely controversial at law in any way. Even the first drafts were clearly safely within the Presidential powers to regulate immigration at his discretion.
Last edited:
King of Foxes
Banned
Are they even allowed to leave their country? I haf always assumed they were isolationist by choice. Kims choice obviously but still
I don't think the initial drafts had clear safety provisions which made it easier to claim Trumps comments about Muslims would be the litmus test which would be unconstitutional.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Very safe. People try to deny it but the real motivation for appointing these judges is crystal clear. That's why Mitch McConnell was smart to block the Democrat's SC pick. The Democrats are salty right now because someone made a pragmatic decision.
Bolivar687
Banned
Taking his campaign comments into consideration was, far and away, among the most idiotic things the lower courts were trying to do.
I highly recommend Kozinski's dissent for anyone interested in the issue.
TheShadowLord
Member
I find it to be dumb banned in the name of security. Some of the attacks are from countries not listed while few are US born (I am still researching on this so bare with me.) What's going to happen if the next attack comes from a US-born citizen in the name from, a Muslim country not listed on the travel banned, or that the reverse happens and someone attacks a mosque? I do not see how this solves anything and would cause Muslim Americans to be afraid of being discriminated against. I feel like it doesn't feel it solves anything.
I am not sure why Somalia is listed on it so I will look it up later.
I am not sure why Somalia is listed on it so I will look it up later.
I just read the first few pages. It doesn't look like he is critiquing the response from the judges on the original order. According to this, the government didn't appeal or challenge, but instead submitted revised versions of the order. A couple of the judges weren't satisfied because they argued on the intent and spirit of the order based on the original submission rather than taking the revised version as a separate piece. They aren't wrong in attempting to link the comments and the original drafts of the order to the revisions in terms of attempting to discern motive and intent. However I think they overstep their power after the submissions have been made to give clear pathways for ban requirements. If I'm reading Kozinski's argument. He is technically correct that they are given opinion on the intent of the latest revisions rather than taking the revised orders at face value.
I don't have an answer because even if the intent were true, I'm not sure If we can consider the order unconstitutional or not. Which really is part of the debate. Does the history of the ban show intent. Even if it does, does that mean any legislation and execution would also stem from that intent or as long as the execution is withing constitutional grounds, the intent has no bearing. It seems incredible similar to Stop and Frisk where it was found that the practice was not unconstitutional, but that the methods were. It seems like the Trump admin got ahead of this by changing the implementation and removing that legal barrier so it seems intention is should have no legal basis on whether an order is unconstitutional. But again, I'd like to hear some legal scholars opinions.
Ancient Dragon
Member
Good
rokkerkory
Member
How come the countries that have killed Americans aren't on that list?
Dev1lXYZ
Member
of crow feathers on their way to the 9th Circuit Court! The travel bans were all within the President’s power, and they tried to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Third time was the charm as they say! 
The polls are going to be looking great going into the midterms with campaign promises kept. The Democrats are ‘winning’ so many Pyrrhic victories that they won’t be able to do anything for years.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
LoL. Didn't Supreme Court oppose it last year?
infinitys_7th
Member
God, looking at a bunch of leftist-heavy forums, the continued salt over Gorsuch is just crusting over after this.
CampbellzSoup
Member
Where’s all the L gifs now??? Lol
infinitys_7th
Member
More seriously, suppose a hypothetical presidential candidate had, at one point, called young black men "superpredators". Should she be prohibited from issuing any directive which would potentially target black people disproportionately?
ZehDon
Gold Member
Surprised at their ruling, frankly. Reading some of the opinions, it’s clear some of the judges contextualised the ban using Trump’s Twitter comments and speeches, and ruled on it as if it contained those words. I’m not sure how I feel about that. I generally don’t give Trump the benefit of the doubt, however when dealing with the rule of law, the actual words in the actual document are what counts. However, laws and orders don’t exist in a vacuum. I’ll have to see how this plays out.
Death Dealer
Member
You don't often see really lopsided decisions. Because if a case was that obvious, it wouldn't have usually gone all the way to the SC.
If you read the decision, all 9 justices agreed the president had the authority to do it. The constitution is pretty unambiguous about that. But one dissent thought the administration wasn't following the actual text of the executive order. And Sotomayor and Ginsburg thought the order showed bias due to Trump's campaign rhetoric. But presumably if he hasn't called it a muslim ban. And after getting into office, enacted the same E.O., they would have affirmed the president's right to do it.
Or GInsburg and Sotomayer would have came up with some other bullshit excuse
rokkerkory
Member
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on that list? Terrorists have killed many Americans that have come from SA.
ic3cait: As a NeoMenber you will get the benefit of the doubt or a second chance. However for the future consider that these type of accusations with racial undertones should be backed up with tangible proof else you risk a ban. Thank you.
Because the list was about shithole countries that didn't have a functioning government to the point that we couldn't actually identify the people coming from those places were who they claimed they were. That was the idea behind the travel ban and why the top 30 most populous muslim countries weren't on it, despite left wing activist trash judges, who should be removed from the bench, declaring it "unconstitutional" because "it's wrong to ban even a single non-white person from entering the country."
rokkerkory
Member
What about the "shithole countries" that are funding terrorists and killing Americans? Does that matter too?
Are you purposely trying to miss the point.
Or are you complaining that the list isn't long enough?
rokkerkory
Member
If we are trying to stop terrorists coming from countries that are harboring and supporting them then why does the list not include those countries? Why make a travel ban when it doesn't stop the root cause?
CampbellzSoup
Member
Clearly you know more about homeland secretary than the US Homeland Security
Because the point was never about sensible and effective rule and legislation and always about “winning” on both sides.
Most people reacting on both sides don’t even know what countries actually made the list. Nor do they care.
You misunderstand. I don't think the list went far enough.
rokkerkory
Member
The list doesn’t match the intended goal.
1. Becuase Saudi Arabia government isn't in shambles. We can track saudi arabian citizens, along with the aid of their governemnt.
2. There are tons of terrorist groups and other states that have taken an antagonistic position against America as well. You do know there are problems in the world besides Saudi Arabia, right?
Pretty sure actual policy overrides campaign speeches.
Last edited:
Probably one of the most important takeaways from today's ruling that nobody has really picked up on yet;
Any federal judge is allowed to overrule the President and that's not how the system was intended.
I think you're missing the goal. Much like all 4 judges who ruled against it on the Supreme Court. It wasn't to ban muslims. It wasn't to ban terrorists. It was to ban people coming in from countries who didn't have a functioning enough government for us to vet them. We already try to keep terrorists out of the country.
Any federal judge is allowed to overrule the President and that's not how the system was intended.
I think you're missing the goal. Much like all 4 judges who ruled against it on the Supreme Court. It wasn't to ban muslims. It wasn't to ban terrorists. It was to ban people coming in from countries who didn't have a functioning enough government for us to vet them. We already try to keep terrorists out of the country.
Last edited:
they use saudi arabia as a gotcha. They probably forgot that the ban was only an increased restriction of a law Obama signed in 2015.
Personally I feel the ban was just Trump being Trump and furthering his agenda on nationalism and satisfying his voters that oppose the Muslim world. I will give the guy credit, he's a populist that follows through. I do feel that there is legitimacy to the ban, at least in part, since the Obama administration also had some level of travel restriction from these and other countries. The reasons may be obscure and obviously quite political. Saudi Arabia we know funds terrorism, yet it doesn't stop us from being "allies".
As for the true benefit to this (to me), it's the outrage. It shows people really dont care about the nuances of anything. They pick a side and defend it even if facts are thrown in their faces. This is true on both sides. Say what you will about religious zealots, but even they can't hold a candle to the kind of creature that festers in echo chamber swamps like the_donald or /r/ politics (and let's not forget fakenewgaf). The people who roll their eyes at this political theater and instead discuss the real outcomes and moral implication, those are worth listening to. (In this case not me, I'm just here with my tub of popcorn).
As for the true benefit to this (to me), it's the outrage. It shows people really dont care about the nuances of anything. They pick a side and defend it even if facts are thrown in their faces. This is true on both sides. Say what you will about religious zealots, but even they can't hold a candle to the kind of creature that festers in echo chamber swamps like the_donald or /r/ politics (and let's not forget fakenewgaf). The people who roll their eyes at this political theater and instead discuss the real outcomes and moral implication, those are worth listening to. (In this case not me, I'm just here with my tub of popcorn).
AfricanKing
Member
This ban shows the lengths this racist is going to so he can tear America apart. White men with guns are more of a threat than Muslims are in America
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really, no. Using data from George Soros and the New America Foundation (so no claims of right-leaning bias) we see that muslims have killed nearly twice as many people as far right extremists (which they include white supremacists, neo-nazis, etc.) Since the page's last update (they went to a new format that doesn't list the individual attacks,) 2 have occurred. A muslim extremist killed 8 people and a white supremacist killed 1 person. So the total sits at 102 for muslims and 49 for white supremacists, neo-nazis, and far right extremists. At least since 9/11. And then the fun begins. According to the US Census, there are approximately 197,711,541 whites in this country and according to Pew Research there are approximately 3.3 million muslims. So, doing a little quick math;
49 / 197,711,541 x 100,000 = 0.2
102 / 3,300,000 x 100,000 = 3.1
3.1 / 0.2 = 15.5
A muslim extremist is 15.5x as likely as a white supremacist, neo-nazi, or far right-extremist to kill somebody in a terrorist attack. At least in the United States of America.
Last edited:
AfricanKing
Member
Not really, no. Using data from George Soros and the New America Foundation (so no claims of right-leaning bias) we see that muslims have killed nearly twice as many people as far right extremists (which they include white supremacists, neo-nazis, etc.) Since the page's last update (they went to a new format that doesn't list the individual attacks,) 2 have occurred. A muslim extremist killed 8 people and a white supremacist killed 1 person. So the total sits at 102 for muslims and 49 for white supremacists, neo-nazis, and far right extremists. At least since 9/11. And then the fun begins. According to the US Census, there are approximately 197,711,541 whites in this country and according to Pew Research there are approximately 3.3 million muslims. So, doing a little quick math;
49 / 197,711,541 x 100,000 = 0.2
102 / 3,300,000 x 100,000 = 3.1
3.1 / 0.2 = 15.5
A muslim extremist is 15.5x as likely as a white supremacist, neo-nazi, or far right-extremist to kill somebody in a terrorist attack. At least in the United States of America.
Are you purposely leaving out every mass shooting
LOL how disingenuous can you get? You do know he means mass shootings in general right? You know, like Parkland? Or Vegas? Or Santa Fe? Any thoughts on the Parkland shooter wearing a MAGA hat in his Instagram page? Do you think I'd argue that all Trump supporters should be on a list now because of that?Not really, no. Using data from George Soros and the New America Foundation (so no claims of right-leaning bias) we see that muslims have killed nearly twice as many people as far right extremists (which they include white supremacists, neo-nazis, etc.) Since the page's last update (they went to a new format that doesn't list the individual attacks,) 2 have occurred. A muslim extremist killed 8 people and a white supremacist killed 1 person. So the total sits at 102 for muslims and 49 for white supremacists, neo-nazis, and far right extremists. At least since 9/11. And then the fun begins. According to the US Census, there are approximately 197,711,541 whites in this country and according to Pew Research there are approximately 3.3 million muslims. So, doing a little quick math;
49 / 197,711,541 x 100,000 = 0.2
102 / 3,300,000 x 100,000 = 3.1
3.1 / 0.2 = 15.5
A muslim extremist is 15.5x as likely as a white supremacist, neo-nazi, or far right-extremist to kill somebody in a terrorist attack. At least in the United States of America.
Oh, all homicides in general? Then, yeah, whites likely overtake muslims. But then blacks overtake whites. So I figured you probably wanted to avoid that.
See above.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked