Yep…the court unanimously agreed that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to enact his temporary travel ban.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
They did no such thing.
Please educate yourself on the difference between the Court striking down an injunction by a lower court, and the Court ruling on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court will not rule on the question of whether “the Constitution gives the president of the United states the authority to enact his temporary travel ban” until October.
And the Court didn’t even strike down the entire injunction. What they said was that the ban can currently be enforced against travelers from the affected countries who do not have a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. citizen. This likely means that most prospective travelers, aside from refugees, will be allowed in.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2017/06/27/supreme-court-supports-part-of-presidents-travel-ban/#64bc30292187
So in other words, the Court has effectively neutered the ban. And again, they did not express any opinion on the ban’s constitutionality and will not do so until October, after the ban has already expired.
You’re right, Chris, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the travel ban.
But the ban was not “neutered,” Chris.
The court invalidated all of the injunctions imposed by the lower courts against enforcement of the ban and created exceptions. Immigrants from the six countries can be exempted if they can show that they have a “relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S.
This of course will create a great deal of confusion as the government struggles to define “relationship” and will likely inspire even more court battles…all for a 90 day ban that would have ended had the delusional PC crazed left not chosen to discovered bigotry where none existed and just allowed the temporary ban. This entire exercise has been absolutely insane. People from all over the world wait YEARS to come to America.
And the court will eventually find that Trump has that constitutional authority, if it ever comes to that, for at least three reasons, 1) the courts have ruled that the Constitution gives the president the final say on foreign policy and that immigration is one of the tools he can use, 2) Congress has expressly authorized the president to suspend immigration from stated countries for finite periods of time to enhance national security, 3) Trump’s reasoning was based on a determination by the State Department under former President Barack Obama which was reinforced by his own State Department. Trump designated the very same countries Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that your party yawned at when Obama held the same position of power.
I bet Libby just loves this one…
San Francisco Awards $190,000 To Illegal Immigrant Over “Sanctuary City Violation”
The tax payers of San Francisco, courtesy of a plea deal negotiated by the City Attorney’s Office, will soon be handing over $190,000 to an illegal immigrant, who had a warrant out for his arrest mind you, after he filed a lawsuit alleging that city police violated ‘sanctuary city ordinances’ by handing him over to immigration officials. No, you’ve not lost your mind, this is real life.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/san-francisco-awards-190000-illegal-immigrant-over-sanctuary-city-violation
Watch the lawsuits pile up!
Excellent article by Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:
http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-media-has-broken-down-in-the-age-of-trump/
Explains a lot – even for folks like Chris or Libby . . . . .
J, I agree it should inform, even act as a wake up call, but I’m not sure our friends Libby or Chris will ever admit to the bias that has been so obvious to us for much longer than Mr. Goodwyn indicates (2016) in his piece.
There’s been media animosity toward Republicans since Nixon. That bias has grown to extreme bias, and finally to overt political activism which began in 2008. The 2016 election represents a further shift to actual fabrication with the intent to undermine and destroy.
But it does my heart good to read from a respected professional the things we’ve experienced for so long:
As difficult as it is to watch the resulting freak show it is equally rewarding to see those most responsible confronted with their unprofessional attitudes and scurrilously politicized product.
Three cheers for this:
Trump is the first Republican to refuse to tolerate it in dramatic, acidic fashion. He gives back exactly as they dish out to him and in doing so stands up for all of the republicans that have been demeaned through the years in the court of public opinion. I’d list them but the list is much too long and by association, includes every one of us that have quietly…and then not so quietly…endured the bias and hate.
Goodwyn’s conclusions are spot on, not to mention very entertaining. Thanks for sharing J…good one!
Just read another good article at The American Thinker, “Trump Exposes What Real Privilege Looks Like in America” which talks about “Write Privilege”
My first response to Chris above needs revising. I was tired when I posted it at 12:19 AM and it’s not quite accurate. I wrote under the cartoon: “…the court unanimously agreed that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to enact his temporary travel ban.”
To which Chris replied: “Please educate yourself on the difference between the Court striking down an injunction by a lower court, and the Court ruling on the constitutionality of an issue.”
I immediately realized the error I made and acknowledged Chris’s comment was right. However, upon further examination I didn’t say the court ruled on the constitutionality of the ban. I actually said that the justices agreed that the president has the authority. They had to believe that in order to strike down the injunctions and allow the ban, albeit with certain exceptions.
Chris I don’t much appreciate the lecture or the condescending tone so let me return the favor. You wrote: “the ban can currently be enforced against travelers from the affected countries who do not have a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. citizen. This likely means that most prospective travelers, aside from refugees, will be allowed in.”
Were it not for your ridiculous certainty that the ban was bigotry you would know that prospective travelers that can be determined to have a bona fide relationship with a US citizen are more likely to be easily vetted. These don’t represent the purpose for which the ban was imposed.
As I said, the courts “exception” (legislating in the judicial, IMO) will cause a lot of confusion and if I know my lefty lawyers another slew of politically motivated activist court cases.
Three months, Chris. Really? Your party is going to put the nation through all of this crap for a measly three months delay? Unbelievable!
I actually said that the justices agreed that the president has the authority. They had to believe that in order to strike down the injunctions and allow the ban, albeit with certain exceptions.
No, they did not have to believe that to strike down the injunctions. Again, you need to educate yourself on this subject. The court struck down injunctions from proponents of gay marriage prior to Obergefell. That did not mean they believed that gay marriage bans were constitutional. So the error in your article remains, and you should have stuck by your initial admission of error.
The “chaos” is being caused by an irrational, useless ban that violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and, according to some of the ban’s own supporters such as Rudy Guliani, is motivated by anti-Muslim bias.
We already know that had the ban been implemented on the time table Trump originally wanted, it would have prevented zero terror attacks. How can one defend it at this point? Trump has had the time he claimed he needed to revise our security procedures–has he done that?
This is a classic example of doing something because it will make you FEEL safe, not a policy that will actually do anything to keep us safe.
Was Obama’s ban, which went unchallenged, also useless and irrational?
Do you dispute the idea that our nation was notion a position to adequately vet refugees coming from nations in chaos?
What can you proffer to show the ban would do nothing to stop a single attack…are you capable of seeing everything about the intentions of those entering as refugees and the future?
It’s interesting how Obama was given broad powers with respect to both immigration (legal and illegal) and refugees but it’s different for trump, even when the language is the same.
Articles of reference:
Forbes
Chicago Tribune
Cornell-Wex legal Dictionary:
And this is particularly interesting:
How easy is it to vet those conditions? Christians, gays, women and children are all being persecuted by American standards in the banned countries.
Tina, as I’ve shown you before, there was no “Obama ban.” He did put restrictions on the voter waiver program for Iraqi refugees, but at no point were they “banned,” and there was no month during that time that we did not take Iraqi refugees. Trump’s ban is an actual ban, and violates the Immigration and Nationality Act which prohibits national origin discrimination in the issuance of a visa. Obama’s restrictions had nothing to do with visas, and were about visa WAIVERS, so they did not violate the INA.
But I am willing to explain that as many times as you need me to.
What improvements to the vetting system has Trump made so far? He said he needed 90 days to do that when he initially signed the executive order–those 90 days are up. So what are the results?
If there aren’t any, will you consider that he never had any intention or ability of making new vetting procedures?
That should say “visa waiver program,” not “voter waiver program.”
What do you think prompted them to strike down the injunctions?
They were clear about why in their decision.