Jump to content

Travel Ban #3 Upheld by USSC- Big Win for Trump!

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Quote

Trump v. Hawaii

 
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-965 9th Cir. Apr 25, 2018
Tr.Aud. 		Jun 26, 2018 5-4 Roberts OT 2017
 

Holding: The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States; respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 violates the establishment clause.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 26, 2018.

 

More details from scotusblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-hawaii-3/

pdf of the details:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5,562

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey, this is white man country. We came in and cleared out the browns and reds while bringing in the blacks under our boot.  We don't want these religious browns coming in starting shit. This is all part of keeping our country pure so if you don't like it, move. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4,580

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m surprised by the decision because it was so obviously a policy motivated by xenophobia in the name of “National Security”.

pretty disgusting 

You shouldn't be surprised by any 5-4 decision along partisan lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1,798

Posted
Posted

This is why anyone who is whining about Democrats/Liberals not showing civility can fucking eat the corn out of my shit. This was a stolen seat and the GOP is successfully chipping away at the concept of democracy and its functionality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3,097

Posted
Posted

I liked Thomas' concurring opinion questioning the authority of individual district courts to impose "universal" or "nationwide injunctions".  The opinion of the court declined to address this issue as their ruling made the point moot in the instant matter, but if this Thomas brushback to the district court judges doesn't get their attention, I bet that SCOTUS will be addressing this relatively recent innovation in jurisprudence sometime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8,397

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This is why anyone who is whining about Democrats/Liberals not showing civility can fucking eat the corn out of my shit. This was a stolen seat and the GOP is successfully chipping away at the concept of democracy and its functionality.

15c.gif

  • Like 8
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4,580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Dems will need to play hardball with the court if they want to accomplish anything of substance in the future (assuming they actually want to).  Impeachments and court packing will need to be on the table.

All bets are off after the Garland travesty.   The GOP is getting perceived benefits in the short term, but it will come back to bite them.   And the more they chip away at stare decisis, the less lasting impact their short-term successes will have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GabrielsHorn

GabrielsHorn 2,183

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's fascinating reading the decisions in both this case and the California FAST Act case. Sotomayor's and Breyer's interpretation of the First Amendment is really fascinating to analyze in two very, very different cases. 

e: I'd also highly recommend reading Breyer's dissent, starting at page 57. 

Edited by GabrielsHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1,814

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dems were too civil with McConnell over Garland 

Wouldn’t have mattered. Pubs believe as the Maoists believe: power comes from the barrel of a gun. They had final say on Garland, and fuck your traditions, civility and anything else that isn’t actual power. Dems who want the country we grew up in can fuck off. That country is gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

All bets are off after the Garland travesty.   The GOP is getting perceived benefits in the short term, but it will come back to bite them.   And the more they chip away at stare decisis, the less lasting impact their short-term successes will have. 

I'm skeptical of the political will of dems to use those kind of measures, but we'll see.  I don't know if there is an FDR-type among them who would be willing to go directly after SCOTUS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8,397

Posted
Posted

I thought it would be 7-2. I underestimated the liberal justice's desire to fight trump as opposed to applying the law to a case.

Roberts dunking on the liberals by pointing out how much worse the actions of their venerated FDR were than those of the current POTUS:

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4,580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm skeptical of the political will of dems to use those kind of measures, but we'll see.  I don't know if there is an FDR-type among them who would be willing to go directly after SCOTUS.  

I don't know about the measures you cite, but I'm damn well sure that Republican presidents will have a tough time getting any justices through a Dem Senate in the future, at least after mid-terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,851

Posted
Posted

I sense a little bit of snark in this thread.

Yes, it's technically a victory, but the left forced the administration to rewrite the ban twice, and there are loads of exemptions that weren't included in the first go round.

This isn't the original travel ban. This has been in effect since December and fails to do what the administration wanted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Congrats on the Tyranny 

Tyranny towards non-citizens, with regard to entry into our country?

 

It must be heart-wrenching shouldering all of that guilt.  Lolz. 

 

It’s ok to disagree with the decision, but asking for kindler gentler treatement of trespassers doesn’t move the needle on the compassion scale, bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8,397

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Wouldn’t have mattered. Pubs believe as the Maoists believe: power comes from the barrel of a gun. They had final say on Garland, and fuck your traditions, civility and anything else that isn’t actual power. Dems who want the country we grew up in can fuck off. That country is gone. 

Traditions?  Democrats ran out the clock on numerous Bush nominations that were made in the last year of his presidency.  There did not happen to be a SCOTUS spot open, or the same would have been done.

 

Quote
]is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not—and not—name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,851

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Traditions?  Democrats ran out the clock on numerous Bush nominations that were made in the last year of his presidency.  There did not happen to be a SCOTUS spot open, or the same would have been done.

 

 

The good news is, the Democrats will have plenty of opportunities for payback in the not too distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,297

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Slorch, holy shit, do you even know what this travel ban is? Trespassers?

6/26/2018 - Slorch goes full Slorch, reveals himself the giant piece of shit he truly is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...