Supreme Court gives Trump another VICTORY

Yesterday the SCOTUS or Supreme Court Of The United States gave President Trump another victory by allowing the "broad" travel ban on immigrants coming from countries that post security risks to the United States. The Supreme court has reverse a decision that was made by a federal judge in Hawaii the 9th Circuit court.

Next month the SCOTUS will take take this case and decide if the President is right or wrong.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/12/supreme-court-allows-trump-continue-ban-most-refug/

Comments

  • edited September 13
    This is just a sneak speak of what's coming in October. This October the Supremes will side with the Presidents EO which is in line with 212(f) INA of 1952. I predicted this outcome couple of months ago in here. And all the liberals in here all called me a nazi well this nazi is well versed in the law. Facts not feelings always win out.
  • Tirow and my respect to both Rastaman and Pawnstar and others who are interested in following the updates on this issue and who will be commenting on this particular thread. Please note, I am not trying to debate but just sharing my own opinion. I am currently working with immigrants as a legal intern in an immigration legal organization so as you can imagine this issue interests me as it directly relates to and affects the work I do.

    Having said that, let me share just my own opinion. I have read the opinion and I would have to respectfully disagree that the Supreme Court's decision gave the Trump Administration victory. In fact, the decision only granted the government's stay application in part and narrowed the injunction entered by the 9th Circuit to be applicable to parties similarly situated to the Respondents. (see decision). This means that parts of the Executive Order may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a "bonafide relationship" with a person or entity in the U.S. (see decision).

    This, to me, doesn't not mean a complete victory for Trump's Administration. It means the Second Executive Order (revision of first order), although much more lenient than the first, still have flaws (I know, nothing is ever perfect), at least as far as the constitution is concerned (see opinion on constitutional issue, specifically the procedural history section of the opinion).

    That will be it for now. Please see the Court's decision below, as well as some comments by experts regarding the decision.

    Tirow pwan Kinisou Chapur,
    Respectfully, Loyalty


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-the-supreme-courts-travel-ban-ruling-means/2017/06/26/5e86e1cc-5a7e-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.a997a3a8945e

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/26/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-what-means/428219001/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-case.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-grandparents/index.html
  • Its a precursor to next month showdown.
  • Oh forgot one more thing...Rasta the 9th Circuit injunction was not reversed. Parts of it remained while some were stayed, not reversed.

    Thank you,
    Respectfully,
    Loyalty
  • Without comment, the court blocked a federal appeals court ruling from last week that would have exempted refugees who have a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations from the travel ban while the justices consider its legality.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court-refugees/index.html
  • edited September 15
    That's more like it. Thank you. I was only referring to the first post you made to this thread. But that is true. Yes, some parts of EO2 still needs to be revisited as the Court mentioned. Supporters of the Order are arguing that even refugees who have already been placed or referred to agencies in the U.S. but who are not in the U.S. yet can still be refused admission. The opponents, on the other side, argue that such individuals who fall in that category are far into the process already and should not be denied entry. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

    Thank you Rastaman
  • "This, to me, doesn't not mean a complete victory for the Thrump Administration." It's also true with most who follow the thread. The thread said, "another victory for Trump" NOT a "complete victory". That, in itself, says what needs to be said.
  • Still a Victory, the liberals tried getting the ban not enforced but supreme court allowed it, liberals tried blocking the new one yet supreme court passed it yet again. Victory 2 times and the 3rd one coming next month.
  • Tirow, I'm not in anyway getting into word playing or choice of words and I do not intend to. I am simply directing you to the Court's opinion. The Court's ruling doesn't necessarily give any side victory. I did not say defeat either.

    First, If you actually took the time reading the opinion, you'll realize that yes it's two separate lawsuits (one on EO1 and the other on EO2) consolidated by the Supreme Court. So I do not see it as two victories to start off with. This is the first time both Orders are ever reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    Second, the Respondents (I do not want to label them as liberals because that has nothing to do with the parties involved) are actually victorious because they fall under the protected group under the injunction pertaining to Section 2 of the EO. The Court kept the injunction in place as to foreign nationals that are "similarly situated as the Respondents." This means that the injunction is upheld and EO2 cannot be enforced against such individuals that fall under that category.

    Third, even as to parts of the injunction where the Court actually acted upon, it only "stayed" those parts. That means that it is only temporarily stopping it. This means that EO2 can be enforced against would-be immigrants and visitors who do not fall under the same privilege as the Respondents.

    Respectfully,

    Loyalty
  • If you want people to understand you, you have to be selective with your words and other people's words otherwise you would fair well with the issues.
  • Stupid brown Micronesians supporting a racist President.
  • OK kinen, I will thank you. I guess my point was, opinion cannot be for one or the other. No victories to claim. The opinion in essence limited the reach of EO to exclude certain groups alike the respondent. Thank you. Let's stay on topic if you don't mind.

    Respectfully,
    Loyalty
  • No victories to claim says you yet the media is calling this "Another Trump Victory".

    The EO will be fully enforced. The SCOTUS will rule on favor of the government.
  • @Loyalty, that won't be hard to understand.
    Thank you.
  • edited September 15
    Pawnstar I thought you always accused media of false information? Oh and I don't necessarily think media is in a better position than legal experts to analyze the decision. What is your assessment, not the media? I've shared mine. Thank you.
  • The media brought in their legal experts who went against legal experts brought in by the federal government. The media experts were adamant that Trump EO wouldn't pass because according to them its unconstitutional and based on racist tweets. The government experts said it will be a uphill battle but in the end the SCOTUS will allow it. Couple months later what the media expert's said was proved to be wrong.

    This is a victory liberals don't see it that way but the federal government and conservatives do. One of Trumps lawyer predicted this outcome. In the end he said it will be a victory for the government.
  • edited September 15
    OK I think I understand your perspective. My point was the injunction was not stayed in its entirety. Which means the EO2 is not enforceable in its entirety as well. From the perspective of the parties opposing parts of section 2 of EO2 they are also victorious. So I guess it depends on your perspective. Thank you.
  • Its not perspective its facts.
  • tango tango 1 trying to argue with an erudite in judicial proceedings. hmmm? who would a layman lend his ears to?? hmmm??

    Yep, it's a no-brainer. Loyalty gets 100 points for the clarification. tango tango 1= zero.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
  • edited September 16
    Hello Belas or should i say Red Snapper how have you been? Zzzzzz is a give away. I recommend that you use different device's when you log in to this forum that way belas&redsnapper don't have to same I.P address. I aslo recommend that you use Hot spot shield or Tunnel Bear or Tiger VPN so it hide your IP address. Also remember that when you log in has belas or red snapper remember that Zzzzzz is the catch phrase of redsnapper. Lol
  • Supreme Court just handed Trump a huge victory on travel ban
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-a-huge-win-for-trump-commentary.html

    *The Supreme Court handed President Trump a near-total victory Monday.

    *No one on the court agreed enough with the more liberal lower courts' decision to keep blocking the Trump ban.

    Don't let the qualified headlines or lead paragraphs in most of the news media fool you. Monday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing just about all of President Donald Trump's travel and immigration ban to go into effect is a very significant victory for his administration.
    Coming at the same time as the Russian collusion hysteria starting to wilt under Democrat self-doubt, and the crushing special election loss for Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia, maybe everyone really is getting tired of all of Trump's winning.
    But while many Americans are still very angered by the ban, the whole country should celebrate the important victory this is for our constitutional separation of powers.


    Its a near total victory! The total will come after this October after the SCOTUS pass judgement on the goverment side (Trump) citing 212 (f) INA of 1953. Obama also used this act/212(f) when he ban the same countries from sending its immigrants to the US.
Sign In or Register to comment.