So I guess the travel ban was constitutional after all

[Doc]

SCOTUS re-institutes the travel restrictions (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-reinstates-key-parts-executive-order.html), or at least key parts of it. Big win for Trump, as it should be. Appears that even some of the liberal justices agreed that it wasn't a religious based ban but rather a geographical one, and that it is within the Presidential authority to order such an action.

[KeithKSR]

We all knew it would happen. The Liberal 9th gets overturned like 90% of the time.

[UKHistory]

The ban was to be a temporary one while we tightened up controls. Has DHS worked on improving vetting procedures. There was no stay on that.

[CitizenBBN]

SCOTUS re-institutes the travel restrictions (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-reinstates-key-parts-executive-order.html), or at least key parts of it. Big win for Trump, as it should be. Appears that even some of the liberal justices agreed that it wasn't a religious based ban but rather a geographical one, and that it is within the Presidential authority to order such an action.


It was always constitutional.

You can't base judicial decisions on stuff like campaign rhetoric. Per their logic the order would have been fine if Obama does it but not bc it was Trump.

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for intent in the law no doubt, that's the difference between murder and manslaughter and no charges due to self defense, but at this level the court doesn't generally engage in that part of it. At the presidential level the correction for such things is the democratic process, not the courts.

If the president acts within the law but w questionable intent the courts will generally stay out of it on the basis that the people are the proper arbiters of that intent and not a small group of judges. They hesitate to border on overturning democracy.

In this case the president was granted broad powers over immigration by the Congress and this order is well within those powers. There is nothing to indicate it is inappropriate bc if Obama had issued it there would also be nothing there they'd rule against. The ruling must be based on that and not things outside that in this case imo.

[CitizenBBN]

Of and BTW it's obvious these nations do harbor terrorists and don't have very good records for vetting. It's not like he picked 6 Muslim nations at random. Obama has singled them out as well as problems and rightfully so.

[Doc]

The ban was to be a temporary one while we tightened up controls. Has DHS worked on improving vetting procedures. There was no stay on that.



We all knew it would happen. The Liberal 9th gets overturned like 90% of the time.

Yes, and its too bad that it took 5 months to sort it out. Sort of defeated the purpose.

[UKHistory]

Whether people were allowed entry or not, vetting procedures could have been revise, and enhanced in spite of the legal issues.

The court's opinion referenced the timeframe outlined in the EO.

The court's decision also allows a wide berth for individuals to claim a connection to the United States. Beyond family, people who are here for an education or work can get in.

The court's ambigious criteria for entry puts a lot of extra pressure on those customs and border officials to determine who may gain entry and who may not.

[bigsky]

We in MT suffer greatly being part of the soviet 9th