Supreme Court Partially Revives Travel Ban, Will Hear Appeal (bloomberg.com)

From a report: The U.S. Supreme Court partially revived President Donald Trump's travel ban and said the justices will hear arguments in the fall. The justices said the ban can apply for now only to people who don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." From a NYT report: Mr. Trump's revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation's refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures. [...] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recently blocked both the limits on travel and the suspension of the refugee program. It ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress. The court agreed to review both cases, and said it would hear arguments in October, noting that the government had not asked it to act faster.

Comments

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[parallel_prankster]

The problem is that executive branch does have the power to enforce such bans. They can always get lawyers to write up the correct language needed. In this case, Mr-cannot-keep-his-twat-shut made so many comments explicitly displaying the nefarious reasons for his ban that made it easier for the appeals courts to use that against the ban. At the Supreme Court level, this had a good chance of passing. Either way Repugs come out winners because even if they lose, they can say tried and the liberal judges on the court rejected it.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

The entire purpose of hate crimes was to assure that those who terrorized or killed blacks in the southern states wouldn't get off. The Civil Rights acts allowed Federal prosecutors to lay charges in these cases, as opposed to leaving it to states where everyone from the cops to the judges to the juries were inclined to let the "good ol' boys" that burned black churches to the ground or lynched some poor black fellow looking at a white women get away with it. Once the FBI and Federal prosecutors were empowered via these laws to go in, take over investigations, and haul these racist bastards into Federal courts, that was a pretty major step in ending the Jim Crow era.

And yes, you're right in a way. If some nefarious politician secretly plots to violate the First Amendment and can keep his mouth shut, he may get away with it. Why should that preclude the courts from dealing with politicians who blatantly declare their intent to violate the First Amendment?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

There are over a billion Muslims, that kind of makes the "cult" claim a bit absurd, and not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings. In fact, it looks like it's a pretty damned small minority. Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.

Just because a cult has a large following does not disqualify the 'cult' status, as Islam is a death-cult.

You point out that there's over a billion Muslims, and your claim of a "small percentage" being radical is arguable, but even a fraction of a billion people who believe God orders them to kill unbelievers and/or enslave them is one hell of a threat in anyone's book who is even remotely rational.

Please stop with the absurd comparisons between Muslims and Christians. Besides, even if every Christian horror story the Left spews were true, you can't justify bad actions of one with bad actions of another. "But Johnny did it too!" is the excuse of a 6-year-old. Are you emotionally/intellectually older than six?

Strat