Slashdot Mirror
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.
If the reason for the ban was supposedly put in place to "address gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures" and was only supposed to be in effect for 120 days shouldn't there be no need for the ban any longer?
If they (the Trump administration) figured that they only needed 120 days to fix the "gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures" and they have been in office for 155+ days then they should already have fixed the problems and the ban should no longer be needed.
That statute is clear, but there is the later statute of 1965 that seems to prohibit using national origin as a determinant for immigration. Does the 1965 statute supersede that clause of the 1952 statute? Also, I've noticed that older laws seem to be written more clearly. Probably just a coincidence.
Do constitutional protections extend to non-citizens living outside the borders of the US?
The ramifications of this ruling will have an enormous impact potentially making the "long-arm" of US law even longer.
We need to be very careful about extending the US constitution beyond the scope of US citizens and US borders.
The appeals courts exceeded jurisprudence in citing his campaign speeches as some how changing the clear language of the Executive orders. What he said as a candidate during a campaign cannot be taken as indicating his intent once elected when the wording of executive orders issued is clear in it's limitations and specifics. The first ban did have a problem in the exception it provided for persecuted religious minorities from those nations made it a defacto ban on the religion from those countries.
But the second ban removed that exception, making it a blanket ban on citizens from those countries regardless of faith.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Whether you like it or not, the ability to wholesale black entire regions from traveling to the US is actually the least cruel, least invasive and least destructive way of preemptively handling potential problems from foreign sources. If they don't arrive here...
1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
(As a side note, "you might be a neocon if..." you think it's deplorable to screen like this, but think shipping a man off to Syria to be "evaluated" is sound, moral foreign policy)
The 90 days are long gone. Whatever he wanted to address during that period should have already been addressed.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue.\
Except no, the Supreme Court has not already ruled on this exact issue. That's why they're taking the case, because they haven't ruled on it.
Haven't you read the lower court opinions, which go into great detail summarizing what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past?
The president absolutely has the authority to limit or stop any immigration, from any class of people, for literally any reason. Even if his stated reason was to explicitly block Muslims.
And that is what the President explicitly does not have the authority to do.
And that is the question before the court: is this travel ban in fact actually designed to block Muslims per se?
The only thing that stands in Trump's way is that pesky first amendment, which prohibits the government establishment of religion. This was the basis for the Fourth Circuit's court stay against the ban. The notion that a President is allowed to use his power to limit immigration irrespective of his violation of other parts of the constitution in doing so is Bowling Green-type fairytale.
In a way it is surprising because there has been little dissent among the lower courts.
I suspect this is because the lower courts have placed themselves in the ridiculous position of declaring that a order enacted under one President would be Constitutional while that very same order enacted under another President would be Unconstitutional.
Further, That an order enacted by a President would be Constitutional until it is discovered that the President made that order with a pejorative mindset.
Either the executive can make this kind of order or they cannot. The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
In a way it is surprising because there has been little dissent among the lower courts.
I think this is because the appeals were made to judges/courts of a similar mindset.
However, the USA seems so divided on whether to be a robber baron libertarian 'paradise' of God-fearing Christians or an Orwellian liberal state where everyone thinks what the state tells them is correct to think., that sometimes I think secession might be the way to go.
No need for secession. The solution is already in the Constitution, and it's called federalism. The federal government is supposed to have an extremely limited role in the governing of the country: courts, national defense & foreign affairs. That's pretty much it. Everything else can be handled by the states. Some people will say "What about regulating interstate commerce?" but what they don't realize is that the intention of the interstate commerce clause was to ensure free trade between the states, not to allow the federal government to impose onerous restrictions.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.
That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is great news. The fewer of these jackholes we let into this country, the safer we will be. Now, if only the FBI would just arrest the ones already in contact with terrorists outside the US, then we'd be even safer.
We should do EXACTLY as Israel does. Profile the shit outta these people and simply ban them forever. Then we could go back to having MORE freedom instead of hours long TSA lines because 'we don't want to discriminate'.
Fuck that shit and fuck you liberal twats.
Pax Vobiscum
You use stronger words than I would, but yes if new evidence of intent were to be discovered that could alter the constitutionality. I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
To me this smacks of the logic used in Hate Crimes. Someone who is killed by reason of some prohibited "hate" is just as dead as someone killed for hate that is not "prohibited".
I believe the legislation/orders should stand on their own.
The only other possible scheme would be "disparate impact". I have problems with that in general, but with respect to a travel ban, then any ban that affects any country that has any overwhelming majority of a demographic could be found to have a disparate impact.
For instance, if a ban was placed on nation for reasons of their international conduct, but that nation has a majority of Buddhists, then you could say it was an illegal ban on Buddhists as it has a disparate impact on Buddhists.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"There are certain things which we, in the west, value, things that we hold dear."
Seems like money is the top of that list...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
So you libtards keep acting like the world is at peace - and when they start blowing shit up here, the blood is on YOUR hands.
And conservatives keep acting like terrorism is a significant source of danger for US citizens. If you bought one Powerball ticket per year, you would have about the same chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime as you would being killed by terrorists. It takes extreme ignorance for US citizens to be scared of terrorism either at home or abroad. But that ignorance is just what some politicians are banking on.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The circuit courts used a wild stretch of the imagination to conflate a ban based on national origin with a ban based on religion. Trump said something during his campaign and the courts used that to infer that this ban was somehow based on religious background? This, despite the fact that there are more than a billion Muslims from dozens of countries all over the world who were unaffected and there was no exception for non-Muslims?
They are supposed to rule on the law itself. The President has the power or he doesn't. Guessing what he might be thinking as the basis for a court ruling is ridiculous.
"It's not like disliking a person because they are brown, or black or whatever color."
Yes, it is.
"The backbone of Islam is based on submission."
As it is in Christianity: women to men, men to God.
"hey... man, I heard that the Quran says that it is OK to hit your wife if she is disobedient or disrespectful."
I'm sure the Quran says a lot of things. As does the Bible. That doesn't make them right, or acceptable, or even representative.
"If I am "Racist" because I won't tolerate their hatred of women, then.. fine, I'm a racist."
No, what makes you racist is the blanket attribution of these negative aspects to all members of a heterogeneous group while living in a country where Muslims are a minority.
The problem is that a religion is not a country. If you are afraid of a religion, you should also kick out those that are already there.
You should perhaps start with closing their store. Have them wear a crescent moon on their outer clothing. Rally them up. Planes are dangerous, so put them on trains.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Despite the noise that the vocal minority is making over this, I think you will find that most folks, if asked (assuming no one could find out the answer) would support a completed ban on Muslims in the country. Naturally, most folks are simply afraid of being a racist or other "ist" word.
Honestly, I do not know understand why it is an issue to dislike someone because they are Muslim. It's not like disliking a person because they are brown, or black or whatever color. Islam is a religion and an ideology. It is reasonable to not like a person based on what they choose to believe?
Sure, it's reasonable to not like them. Your feelings are your own, and you're welcome to them. Where it becomes a problem is where the government steps in and starts enforcing someone's feelings by banning people having a particular religious belief from entering the country. I understand you dislike them, and I'm not particularly fond of them either, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the Constitution. What does it say about us, as a nation, if we're willing to sacrifice our founding principles at the drop of a hat?
Want to ban muslims? Then go pass a Constitutional amendment repealing or amending the first amendment to remove the free exercise clause. If you can convince the majority of the population of 2/3rds of the states, then you can have your ban. Until then, you'll have to just have your hate.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?" Motive is: "Why was this order made in the first place?"
Can we help it if the world most likely to be a terrorist countries are all Muslim? To a sentient person that is a clue.
Countries affected by the travel ban:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran
Countries being bombed by the previous administration:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan
People are claiming that the current president does not have the legal authority to ban people from these countries from entering the U.S., but nobody questioned the previous president's legal authority to kill them?
You don't see a problem with an irrational fear of someone because of their religion?
For the gay that's in mid-fall after being thrown from a 5-story building and the woman that was raped and is being stoned to death as punishment for being a victim, I'd say their fears are VERY real, and so are the fears of any nation's citizens whose government chooses to ignore all that and allow these violent 6th-century cult-member killers and rapists into their country unchecked.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You could also argue that the city folks are 100% dependent on rural Americans to support them. Food would be the biggest example.
The fact is, without rural Americans, city people would literally die. The reverse is not true. So, why should city people get to decide anything? They own their lives to country people?
See? It makes no sense.
We are all interconnected and make the system "sort of" work.
I agree, 99% of the Muslim population is not radical by Muslim standards. Personally, I do not think that the ban will do anything to make anyone safer. I do not think it has anything to do with terrorism. I think most people are not afraid of terrorism in their daily lives.
I have long considered myself to be an open minded and liberal man. I also pay my taxes, give to charity and severed in the armed forces during which time I was deployed.
I spend more than half the year living in Europe, so I am rather well traveled.
But, I simply cannot understand my liberal counterparts on this point. How is it OK to support the "freedom" of a religion that systematic oppresses women?
If anything, I would think Republican would love Muslims. They are basically the same. Both hate gay, both hate women, both want a religious state, both support extreme punishments for small crimes. Both of them think natural disasters are a result of not believing in god and so on.
But liberals?
Here is an entire group who hates everything that liberals stand for and seek to actively destroy it, but they simply fall all over themselves trying to show everyone how tolerate they are. I just cannot understand it.
It is your right to support Muslims right to hate women and gays, I just do not know why I am the bad guy for saying it's not OK.
The war on Trump is a war on thinking (no I am not saying Trump is a good thinker.) It is always about what Trump supposedly believes/etc, which makes it really hard to "refute" aside from arguing it with the argument I am using right now. There is no fact you can bring up which will ever refute the "what he really thinks" arguments other than that the whole fucking thing is a bullshit fallacy about nefarious motive instead of nefarious actions.
"His name was James Damore."
You would need to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.
That's complete rubbish. Federal law actively discriminates against people who are not US citizens and furthermore even divides non-US citizens up based on nationality: Canadian's don't need to be fingerprinted and photographed not do they need an ESTA online visa, Europeans and a few other nationalities get fingerprinted, photographed and have to apply for an online ESTA visa, other nationalities have to have full visas. Hence if two people turn up at the border with the identical paperwork one might be admitted and the other denied based solely on their nationality.
As a non-US citizen, I've no problem with this - every country does the same - but let's not pretend that there is no discrimination based solely on nationality because it is frequently the grounds on which most discrimination is made and for very sensible reasons.
You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?"
The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken, not on intended or anticipated future consequences.
For example: Passing what turns out to be a ban on guns is still a 2nd amendment violation, if it prevents or impedes a single citizen acquiring a firearm, even if the intended affect of the bill is to save lives and reduce violence by making guns harder to obtain, and complete ban was not in the mind of the authors.
Intent is used only to help disambiguate what specific actions are being taken when interpreting the meaning of the bill. When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order.
That is.... the courts are there to interpret the laws and orders. The Courts are NOT there to second-guess decisions of the executive or elected officials.
The only time they can strike down an order is by showing there's no possible legal basis, and there's no possible lawful/constitutional interpretation of the rule, law, or order. And even then, the Judiciary is just one branch of government with very limited power over other branches other than some specific limited checks and balances --- E.G. There can't "really" be a dispute between the president and the courts, since the Executive technically has the authority to proceed against their orders.
Well, no, it *is* a question of what the EO references. The Court is ruling on the legality of the EO as it is currently written, because that's really what they have jurisdiction to do.
For them to broaden the scope to things like their perception of intent would be to wildly exceed their authority and destroy what little remains of the checks and balances, making the judiciary branch way too powerful. I mean, while they are at it, they could start to oversee the Legislative branch too, right? Strike down some law, not because the law was bad, but because the Senator that sponsored it was caught saying that he didn't care about the bill itself and just wanted it to pass because it had some unrelated stuff attached to the bill that would be beneficial for his constituents. :)
Regardless, my point wasn't one of whether or not intent would be considered to any degree, it was just that basing an argument on someone else's intent puts you in an extremely weak position, that's all. Even if your view on an issue is the "correct" view, if you arguments are based on the other side's intent, then you just have a much harder time making your case.
I mean, even with a recording of someone saying something you can never really "prove" intent, so the most you can do is get the ruling body to agree that making an assumption is okay and that your assumption is reasonable and the one they should agree with. And then on top of that, it's too easy for the other party to (truthfully or not) say they changed their mind along the way, that they heard from the people, that they misspoke, that they now understand the issue better, etc., etc., etc. Again, it could all be total lies, but it'd all serve to weaken your case - if you've pinned your argument on the other guy's motivations, then it's a much easier position for him to defend.
The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests.
Well, the text of the Constitution doesn't, though there's lots of later precedent. The issue is less clear to me because Islam is a political philosophy as well as a religion.
I have no problem, constitutionally, if the president wants to ban Communists or Fascists. To the subset of Muslims determined to be a problem, the religion includes an overriding political goal. Ideally, we ban people based on that political stance - I think that would be great - somehow without being over-broad in the ban. A ban on the "opposed to our core ideals" politics, not the religion. That seems a narrow needle to thread, however.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
the only words that matter though are the ones written on the E.O.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Not according to the legal principal of legislative intent.
You don't see a problem with an irrational fear of someone because of their religion?
For the gay that's in mid-fall after being thrown from a 5-story building and the woman that was raped and is being stoned to death as punishment for being a victim, I'd say their fears are VERY real, and so are the fears of any nation's citizens whose government chooses to ignore all that and allow these violent 6th-century cult-member killers and rapists into their country unchecked.
Strat
There millions of Muslims in the US and the EU. And yet those stories aren't happening there. Strange. It's almost as if it's not the religion that's causing people to do these things...
But don't let perspective get in the way of your witch hunt. Carry on. Death to the Moors and Saracens (sorry, I mean Muslims) and all that.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
If I shoot (and kill) an intruder in my home after he has broken in and shot me first and is aiming for another shot, it's not "murder" anywhere in the US. If I shoot a stranger on the street who is no danger to me, it's murder everywhere in the US.
Circumstances, including motivation, do *ALWAYS* affect legality.
In this case, any restriction on freedom must come with a reason. If the president were to enact a 4 p.m. curfew because that would be a good economic stimulus for mass transit, that would be shot down because the reason does not justify the harm. Passing a travel ban requires balancing the goal with the harm. This necessarily requires looking at the motivation. If one could prove that the reason is invalid, then it would necessarily prove the harm to be unjustified. The goal is increased security, does the executive order do so in a well crafted manner? No. It fails because it exempts Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from and who funded 9/11. So the order is trivially illegal, as it doesn't meet its stated goal, so no harm could be justified.
Further, the stated goal in the Executive Order is a lie, as Trump has, in official statements, indicated that the order is a lie, and the real reason for the ban is to ban Muslims. Thus, the goal is de facto illegal, making the order illegal.
The reasons matter in such matters. Indonesia has more Muslims than any country in the ban. So why would they not be banned if the goal was banning Muslims? Again, even if the overtly racists reasons were legal, the courts should still find the order illegal as it doesn't conform to the stated goal.
Learn to love Alaska