High Court reinstates Trump travel ban, will hear arguments

[KLATTU]

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- "The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it."

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

Great news.

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Welp, I guess that settles it. At least for now.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

The courts should evaluate any law or policy based upon how it is written, not on anything extraneous regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

 

[JasperL]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

I'm basically agnostic on the legal aspects - don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

What I'm sure of, however, is this is not accurate (from the story):

The Trump administration said the [90-day] ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before October 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

We're in day 156. Where are the results of that critical internal review? If they wanted to change the procedures, they should have done so by now, seeing how critical it was to screen out all them terrorists and stuff. I have a sneaking suspicion the "review" was and is complete BS....

 

[reinoe]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

This is great news. I started a poll about this...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/285997-can-law-specifically-written-apply-only-one-person.html

The reason why the ban was blocked by the idiotic lower courts is because Trump said during the campaign he wanted a "Muslim Ban". The lower courts said that since the E.O. was written by Trump then it constituted an attack on the 1st amendment, even though the word "MUSLIM" never appeared in the E.O. Basically if Trump had temporarily stepped down for a day and asked Pence to issue the E.O. then the lower courts would have had no argument at all.

I think it's time we start issuing impeachment orders on the lower courts to put a stop to the "judge shopping" that liberals have been engaging in lately.

 

[JasperL]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

The courts should evaluate any law or policy based upon how it is written, not on anything extraneous regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but courts take into account "extraneous" stuff not in the law all the time. I deal in taxes, and the legislative history, what proponents said, the debate, etc. of a tax law is often considered by the courts in interpreting a given tax law and how it should be enforced.

 

[joG]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

That's about it. The ban doesn't convince me and the damage it has done is hardly worthwhile.
But judges are about implimenting the law and not legislation.

 

[Napoleon]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

It is only a partial reinstatement that applies only to persons from the nations identitified who do not have any connections already in or with the United States until the Court hears the case this fall. In short, the scope of the ban has been narrowed until the Supreme Court decides what to do with it later this year.

 

[cpwill]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

Agreed. Like much else coming out of the Administration that folks are setting their hair on fire, deserves the famous Scalia Stamp:

 

[Fenton]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

Sweet ! Nah, there's no such thing as activist lower courts or judges...Lol !

 

[ludin]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

While I don't agree with the policy, I also don't like activist judges who put politics over law. The SC set it right for now.

this is a huge blow to all those judges that attempted to legislate from the bench and the SC opinion should have noted that.
this was on the injunction they will hear further in October, but for now it stands.

 

[Napoleon]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Sweet ! Nah, there's no such thing as activist lower courts or judges...Lol !

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the ban in its reinstatement so that is a clear sign that they believe the lower courts got something right here.

 

[Fenton]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Gorsuch sided with Alito and Thomas to allow the complete bans to take effect
Turns out Gorsuch is a Conservative after all
Good pick Trump !

 

[countryboy]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but courts take into account "extraneous" stuff not in the law all the time. I deal in taxes, and the legislative history, what proponents said, the debate, etc. of a tax law is often considered by the courts in interpreting a given tax law and how it should be enforced.

Nonsense. While what you said is probably true, and is the essence of judicial activism, it has no place in our legal system.

 

[Fenton]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the ban in its reinstatement so that is a clear sign that they believe the lower courts got something right here.

Even a partial reinstatement completely contradicts the lower courts decision that Trumps EO was a Muslim ban.
And the majority of refugees coming from these Nations are not going to have family here to begin with

 

[humbolt]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the ban in its reinstatement so that is a clear sign that they believe the lower courts got something right here.

Not necessarily. It means that the SC is willing to consider the arguments put forth by the lower courts on selected issues - not that they agree with them.

 

[jimbo]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

This is great news. I started a poll about this...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/285997-can-law-specifically-written-apply-only-one-person.html

The reason why the ban was blocked by the idiotic lower courts is because Trump said during the campaign he wanted a "Muslim Ban". The lower courts said that since the E.O. was written by Trump then it constituted an attack on the 1st amendment, even though the word "MUSLIM" never appeared in the E.O. Basically if Trump had temporarily stepped down for a day and asked Pence to issue the E.O. then the lower courts would have had no argument at all.

I think it's time we start issuing impeachment orders on the lower courts to put a stop to the "judge shopping" that liberals have been engaging in lately.

The lower court judges just made laws up to suit an agenda. The SCOTUS just decided to leave the suspension in place until they could hear the case.

 

[Napoleon]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Even a partial reinstatement completely contradicts the lower courts decision that Trumps EO was a Muslim ban.
And the majority of refugees coming from these Nations are not going to have family here to begin with

It doesn't unless the SC issued this reinstatement with merits in mind. I haven't seen anything saying they did and the fact that this was only a partial reinstatement doesn't bode well for that consideration.

 

[disneydude]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

The courts should evaluate any law or policy based upon how it is written, not on anything extraneous regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

In other words....Courts should ignore information and precise. gotch. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[disneydude]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Even a partial reinstatement completely contradicts the lower courts decision that Trumps EO was a Muslim ban.
And the majority of refugees coming from these Nations are not going to have family here to begin with

Even Trump has called it a ban. Doh!

 

[Harshaw]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but courts take into account "extraneous" stuff not in the law all the time. I deal in taxes, and the legislative history, what proponents said, the debate, etc. of a tax law is often considered by the courts in interpreting a given tax law and how it should be enforced.

Nonsense. While what you said is probably true, and is the essence of judicial activism, it has no place in our legal system.

Courts consider legislative history when the text is unclear. But they look to the text first.

 

[Fenton]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

It doesn't unless the SC issued this reinstatement with merits in mind. I haven't seen anything saying they did and the fact that this was only a partial reinstatement doesn't bode well for that consideration.

Why would they reinstate a " Muslim ban " ?
Sorry, but the lower courts didnt rule on the actual contents of the EO, and everyone but the " resistence " new this would be reinstated and eventually overturned.
This was also a good test for Gorsuch, he ruled with Alito and Thomas to allow a full travel ban.
The SCOTUS issue was why many Conservatives, including myself supported and voted for Trump

Now we have a Supreme Court that will check the lower activist courts decisions and it looks like Trump will appoint at least 1 more judge prior to 2020.
Its all good news

 

[JasperL]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Nonsense. While what you said is probably true, and is the essence of judicial activism, it has no place in our legal system.

I'll say it again - I'm not a lawyer. But it's actually helpful for the courts to consider legislative history and other extraneous stuff in the gray areas. Just for example, if the law is unclear, but the court has in front of it a clear expression by Congress about how they'd like this gray area to be interpreted, why would it be better for the court to ignore a clear statement by Congress on the matter before them?

In this case, I've read qualified lawyers completely opposed to the so-called ban supporting Trump's legal ability to impose the 'ban.' But if there is a gray area here, then IMO it just is entirely appropriate to look to statements outside the law to form a legal opinion. What those who support Trump contend is that his authority here is clear and it really doesn't matter why he did it. Could be - I expect that's what the court will decide.

 

[JasperL]

Re: SC reinstates travel ban.

Courts consider legislative history when the text is unclear. But they look to the text first.

That's correct and I perhaps wrongly assumed that it was understood.