Jump to content

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

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

77horn

77horn 216

Posted
Posted

No one should be surprised by the decision.  As it has been pointed out, the Executive Branch has well established powers in this area, and while POTUS made stupid remarks in the campaign, the text of the Order was race neutral.

But IIRC, the purpose of the ban was for 90 days to put a better vetting system in place.  I would seem they've had enough time to make the "travel ban" moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Usually the debate between relying on the facially  neutral official language and the suspected ulterior motive is not at all clear, and that’s why you have to say the facially neutral language controls.  Otherwise people could make all sorts of leaps to challenge it based on groundless innuendo and nothing would get done.

That isn’t the case here.  Trump openly talked about his “Muslim ban” every step of the way.  Nobody else is ever that dumb to admit the unconstitutional motive, but now that we have someone who is, it should be taken into consideration. This is just farcically pretending the ban is something else in order to uphold it.

I could see how SCOTUS could have said "Travel bans are legal and within the purvue of POTUS, however THIS travel ban was based on race as noted by the President's speech..."

Narrow ruling with zero implication on future acts by a President. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So, people are crying because a stolen judge rendered the majority here and their team lost. But, if their team had gotten their judge in and rendered the majority in they would be happy and the other team would be crying now. Do I understand this right? Every news outlet I am hearing are wailing or celebrating, as if they won or lost a game. We are just talking about scoreboards and teams here, not human beings, it seems like.

Welcome to THUNDERDOME politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Quote

There are indications, though, that Watson’s viewpoint may have been further influenced by his Hawaiian heritage and his long record of advocacy for immigrant rights and civil rights. While with a San Francisco law firm in the early 2000s, he devoted hundreds of hours to pro bono cases defending the rights of Mexican restaurant workers being held in slave-like conditions and to landlord-tenant disputes.

The complaint filed by Hawaii’s attorney general against the Trump travel ban contained an explicit reference to some of the most painful chapters in the islands’ history – the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the imposition of martial law and internment of Japanese Americans following the bombing ofPearl Harbor. At the time, the US supreme court upheld the government’s argument – similar to Trump’s – that it had the executive authority to defend national security as it saw fit. But the court’s ruling in Korematsu v United States has since been described as a “stain on American jurisprudence” and has been widely repudiated in federal court rulings if never explicitly overturned.

“If you have an order taking us back half a century to a time when there was discrimination on the basis of national origin or religion,” Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, told reporters after Watson’s ruling, “that’s something we have to speak up against.”

Watson’s suspension of the travel ban rested on the argument that the plaintiffs, including the head of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, had a strong likelihood of prevailing at a full trial. That conclusion, though, rests on a reading of case law that many more conservative jurists and commentators do not share – particularly when it comes to considering comments by President Trump and administration officials as well as the text of the executive order itself.

“Watson’s imaginative reasoning in Hawaii v Trump asserts a new judicial power to disregard formal law if the president’s personal words create a basis for mistrusting his motives,” conservative commentator David Frum wrote in a column worrying about the kind of precedent this could set for future administrations of either party persuasion. “In the age of Trump, many will be sympathetic to this judicial power – but it is crammed with dangers, too.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/derrick-watson-hawaii-judge-trump-travel-ban3628.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&f

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21054

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So, people are crying because a stolen judge rendered the majority here and their team lost. But, if their team had gotten their judge in and rendered the majority in they would be happy and the other team would be crying now. Do I understand this right? Every news outlet I am hearing are wailing or celebrating, as if they won or lost a game. We are just talking about scoreboards and teams here, not human beings, it seems like.

People against the travel ban are talking about human beings. But keep up the "both sides" argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18946

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So, people are crying because a stolen judge rendered the majority here and their team lost. But, if their team had gotten their judge in and rendered the majority in they would be happy and the other team would be crying now. Do I understand this right? Every news outlet I am hearing are wailing or celebrating, as if they won or lost a game. We are just talking about scoreboards and teams here, not human beings, it seems like.

It's politics. It's a horserace that never ends. It's ratings. It's history in a soundbite and it's obnoxious.

The good news is, history is long, and this policy will be out the door the minute a Democrat is in the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29391

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, 77horn said:

No one should be surprised by the decision.  As it has been pointed out, the Executive Branch has well established powers in this area, and while POTUS made stupid remarks in the campaign, the text of the Order was race neutral.

But IIRC, the purpose of the ban was for 90 days to put a better vetting system in place.  I would seem they've had enough time to make the "travel ban" moot.

This is the text of Executive Order 9066:

Executive Order No. 9066

The President

Executive Order

Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.

This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The White House,

February 19, 1942.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So, people are crying because a stolen judge rendered the majority here and their team lost. But, if their team had gotten their judge in and rendered the majority in they would be happy and the other team would be crying now. Do I understand this right? Every news outlet I am hearing are wailing or celebrating, as if they won or lost a game. We are just talking about scoreboards and teams here, not human beings, it seems like.

It’s also presumptuous to assume Garland would have ruled differently.  He was considered a moderate if not slightly right leaning justice embraced by many Republicans.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1969

Posted
Posted
No one should be surprised by the decision.  As it has been pointed out, the Executive Branch has well established powers in this area, and while POTUS made stupid remarks in the campaign, the text of the Order was race neutral.

But IIRC, the purpose of the ban was for 90 days to put a better vetting system in place.  I would seem they've had enough time to make the "travel ban" moot.

 

“Text of the order” is not dispositive. That said, the majority opinion doesn’t rely on the text justification you note, but effectively point out other factors validating the ban constitutionally.

 

Also, the opinion mentions not ruling on any possible statutory challenges. So... now on remand will whatever the hell that is get litigated? I would assume so, and the ultimate result to be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

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

Gotdam borders suck.

 

everyone who believes in US sovereignty is racist!!!

 

the rights and freedoms garnted our citizens should extend to everyone in the world, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18946

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Gotdam borders suck.

 

everyone who believes in US sovereignty is racist!!!

 

the rights and freedoms garnted our citizens should extend to everyone in the world, right?

If they are in the United States, yes, according the the Supreme Court. Good luck keeping all of them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18946

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

I realize this will prob piss off some folks that hate our constitution and ignore the regular practices of our immigration policies

No, I think Republicans will like it, even though the administration was forced into making concessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

I realize this will prob piss off some folks that hate our constitution and ignore the regular practices of our immigration policies 

or ignore the topic of the decision/thread.  immigration policies?

god damn we have some stupid motherfuckers that post on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85576

Posted
Posted

It kind of just pisses me off that the Executive Branch can do so many things under the guise of "national security" like that isn't absolutely ambiguous.

Ban Muslims? National security.

Tariffs on Canada? National security.

Separate families and throw kids into glorified prisons and lose them to the foster care system? National security.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23483

Posted
Posted
It kind of just pisses me off that the Executive Branch can do so many things under the guise of "national security" like that isn't absolutely ambiguous.
Ban Muslims? National security.
Tariffs on Canada? National security.
Separate families and throw kids into glorified prisons and lose them to the foster care system? National security.

We should think about fixing that. Permanently.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85576

Posted
Posted

For once, I agree with you, 'stasis. Give it back to Congress, or, a minimum, make that standard higher and require actual evidence to use "national security" as an excuse to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, po elvis said:

this sucks. i was hoping for more Muslims.

The number of Muslims this ban prevented from entering the country is probably very low.  

This ban doesn’t include Saudi Arabia or Iraq so still plenty of people to scare the whites.

The tragedy of the ruling isn’t so much the tangible consequences but the message we are saying to the world.

 We are a nation of pussies too scared of dark people.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboyFred

CowboyFred 1151

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, slorch said:

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.

Lol tech

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboyFred

CowboyFred 1151

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, slorch said:

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.

Lol tech

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It kind of just pisses me off that the Executive Branch can do so many things under the guise of "national security" like that isn't absolutely ambiguous.

Ban Muslims? National security.

Tariffs on Canada? National security.

Separate families and throw kids into glorified prisons and lose them to the foster care system? National security.

That cat (Presidential power) is out of the bag. Congress (over the last 25 years or so, in particularity) has continued to yield more and more power to the President. Hard to turn back now especially in light of the pussyshits we have in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted

From a jurist standpoint, I’d be curious to hear Roberts’s rationalization that the Colorado commission’s animus in the baker case matters a whole bunch but that trump’s overwhelming nonsense shouldn’t be considered at all and that the words on the page are all that matters. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

From a jurist standpoint, I’d be curious to hear Roberts’s rationalization that the Colorado commission’s animus in the baker case matters a whole bunch but that trump’s overwhelming nonsense shouldn’t be considered at all and that the words on the page are all that matters. 

Animus shmanimus.

-@realdonaldtrump 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

Trump (or at least his handlers) want to make the U.S. less safe.  They want a terror attack.  They are upset that there hasn't been a good terror attack by a Muslim extremist in the past 17 months so that Trump can demagogue against brown people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

For the record, Obama dropped the ball on Garland.  He should have fought for his Supreme Court seat.  He should have done what the Republicans do and get all over the media screaming about their fucking bullshit.

It’s just like how Russia fucked our shit up.

Sadly, they did it because Obama let them.

And I actually like Obama.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9853

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/derrick-watson-hawaii-judge-trump-travel-ban3628.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&f

Too bad he didn't take up the cases of all of the AMERICANS living in tents in San Fran, where $82K for an individual is considered poor.  No wonder they need so much illegal labor, otherwise who would work the grill or bus the tables?  Americans can't afford it and its not like the wages match to cost of living.  Min wage is still min wage, even if they want to force small business owners to pay unsustainable wages.  Is there no such thing as a min wage job in SF?  Or do they bus them in daily to scoop the poop?

Call us when he actually gives a shit about Americans suffering right under his nose and living in tents and slave conditions.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/

 

And preventing travel from countries with no ability to properly vet their citizens is responsible, not racist. 

This is the same dumb ass who said Hawaii would lose all those Muslim tourist dollars so we should make policy that is forced on the rest of the country.  Because an appointed judge playing politics handcuffs the country.

That is the biggest take away, not some travel ban that was created by Obama(guess where they got the countries from) and executed by Trump.  The Supreme court needs to continue to limit local appointed judges from holding the country hostage for their personal politics.  He should turn in his robe for going against the constitution.

Edited by ChickenSandwich
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17889

Posted
Posted

Did California fuck your mother or something? You spend a curious amount of time spouting bizarre theories that the high cost of living in CA is all the fault of illegal immigrants. Of course, you've never been able to support this theory, but keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, sidis said:

From a jurist standpoint, I’d be curious to hear Roberts’s rationalization that the Colorado commission’s animus in the baker case matters a whole bunch but that trump’s overwhelming nonsense shouldn’t be considered at all and that the words on the page are all that matters. 

I am guessing it's because they are completely different types of cases that have different analytical frameworks.

Kind of like Obama and his minions claiming the ACA was not a tax when trying to sell it to the public.  But then when defending it's constitutionality claimed it was a tax.  Those statements did not matter.  What mattered what was on paper.

Edited by Johnny Sack
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...