Supreme Court reinstates Trump travel ban
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
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 Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
This still makes absolutely no sense to me.
1). Why could they have not started the internal review on the first day of Trump's presidency?
2). How can they review the screening procedures if no one is traveling from those countries and no one is being screened?
3). If they find issues with the screening procedures, why not find those issues immediately and fix the problems, rather than wasting time with all this court BS. Just think of all the potential terrorists that slipped into the country over the last 130 (or so) days.
This still makes absolutely no sense to me.
1). Why could they have not started the internal review on the first day of Trump's presidency?
2). How can they review the screening procedures if no one is traveling from those countries and no one is being screened?
3). If they find issues with the screening procedures, why not find those issues immediately and fix the problems, rather than wasting time with all this court BS. Just think of all the potential terrorists that slipped into the country over the last 130 (or so) days.
Not to mention the last 8 years when there were open borders.
I'm already getting tired of all this #winning.
This was unanimous. Big smackdown to the liberal activist judges in the lower courts.
If only the exceptions the Administration had argued for in the Stay Request were in the original language of the EO - all this could have been averted.
It was handled very hastily and sloppily by the administration but I called it legislation from the bench then and I still think so.
Just shows how tainted the system is and how we have to waste time with these politicized factions to get the rule in place and acted on. Lucky there wasn't a problem with some kind of wacky attack here in the US while this appeals court floundered things around. Should be a way to eliminate those crooks in the 9th circuit...and I bet a way is found. Just looking at them they appear to me martians.
Someone somewhere would have gone forum shopping for a sympathetic judge. Everything Trump has done since being inaugurated has been met with wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Was waiting to see when someone would point this out. EVERYONE knew the Supreme Court would overturn the lower courts, which just goes to show you how bad a shape things are in terms of our laws and politics in this country. Complete and utter BS.
In school, that's called flunking.
To this point there's not much Trump could've done short of resign that wouldn't get spun into a resistance theme.
Why? He seems to be doing a good job in spite of the resistance. Just imagine what he'll get done now that it's out of gas.
1. It was not a "unanimous" (9) decision, it was a "per curium" decision where the total votes are not released.
2. Much of the ban remains overturned as the order only was to lift the emergency injunction temporarily.
3. The actual merits will now be argued and decided in the fall and in reality, much of "ban" was overturned and tempered by the court, it is still NOT going to be enforced as written. (Which changes the affect of the E.O. significantly.)
As to the 9th's Circuit's decisions being overturned, they are third on the list of circuits having decisions overturned and are a small fraction ahead of the 4th place. It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that the number of decisions overturned from any circuit is so high, because the number appealed and accepted by the Supreme Court is a tiny fraction of the decisions they render.
On the average, the 9th Circuit hears and rules on about 12,500 appeals per year. (Nearly 4,000 cased more than the number of the next highest circuit.) In 2015, the Supreme Court heard appeals on 11 cases, out of 12,000 from the 9th Circuit and reversed 8 of those. So, in reality the number of decisions made in the 9th Circuit which were ultimately reversed is .064%.
In that same year, I guess one could make the argument that the 2nd Circuit got reversed 100% of the time, as they only had one case that reached SCOTUS and it got reversed. But again, that completely ignores the 99+% of cases they decided which remain intact.
2. Much of the ban remains overturned as the order only was to lift the emergency injunction temporarily.
3. The actual merits will now be argued and decided in the fall and in reality, much of "ban" was overturned and tempered by the court, it is still NOT going to be enforced as written. (Which changes the affect of the E.O. significantly.)
As to the 9th's Circuit's decisions being overturned, they are third on the list of circuits having decisions overturned and are a small fraction ahead of the 4th place. It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that the number of decisions overturned from any circuit is so high, because the number appealed and accepted by the Supreme Court is a tiny fraction of the decisions they render.
On the average, the 9th Circuit hears and rules on about 12,500 appeals per year. (Nearly 4,000 cased more than the number of the next highest circuit.) In 2015, the Supreme Court heard appeals on 11 cases, out of 12,000 from the 9th Circuit and reversed 8 of those. So, in reality the number of decisions made in the 9th Circuit which were ultimately reversed is .064%.
In that same year, I guess one could make the argument that the 2nd Circuit got reversed 100% of the time, as they only had one case that reached SCOTUS and it got reversed. But again, that completely ignores the 99+% of cases they decided which remain intact.
Finally, the SCOTUS lifting of the stay applied only to a subset of the litigants without any legitimate connection to someone already in the US. It only partially reinstated the ban.
Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
This was a victory for Trump, but not a massive one. Still plenty of litigating to do.
It's also in line with what I have been arguing from the beginning.
Yes, I felt compelled to throw in my own "told you so".
Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
This was a victory for Trump, but not a massive one. Still plenty of litigating to do.
It's also in line with what I have been arguing from the beginning.
Yes, I felt compelled to throw in my own "told you so".
Anyone that was honest and could overlook the politics could see SCOTUS was going to overturn in whole or in part. 9th circuit is a joke.
Anyone that was honest and could overlook the politics could see that the very first EO and its application to persons already holding visas or green cards was an unconstitutional overreach as well.
Yet plenty of people here and elsewhere (some of the people being quoted in this thread, in fact) defended that until the bitter end.
Like I said, there is still a lot of litigating to be done before any side can proclaim total victory.
For me, this is not a political issue, it is solely an issue of national security. Not about political victory, but saving American lives and letting the civil war that evidently needs to take place over there to take place over there and not in the coffee houses and the streets in societies who do not have and do not want to have a dog in that fight.
I just want a safe country for my grandkids to grow up in. We have a lady that holds an Italian passport and has a work visa in the US that does some work for us, it was easy to see how the travel ban was rolled out was flawed, she was out of the country at the time.
Trump had good legal footing, implementation was not thought out and he received valid criticism over that.
Last edited:
For me this is about the Constutionality of the EO. Nothing else.
I want to know what are the limits and why. That's all.
I want to know what are the limits and why. That's all.
He had okay legal footing for most of it.
He got bad legal advice on applying it to visa/green card holders. That is something more that thoughtless implementation, IMO.
It's still to be seen when it comes to people that don't have a visa or green card yet, but do have valid, real connections to US citizens or organizations (the SCOTUS reinstatement doesn't apply to that group of people).
In reality, the Travel Ban will only prevent a tiny number of individuals from entering the country. Most every applicant already has family here.
Basically it prevents tourists from those countries (of which there are very few) and extremely poor refugees, who are just looking for a landing spot.
Had the EO originally been written that way, I doubt many (if any) would have been opposed to it. Can't imagine why they would.
With that said, I stand by my original post that there is no need for a travel ban and the vetting should already have been evaluated and fixed (if issues were found during the evaluation).
Basically it prevents tourists from those countries (of which there are very few) and extremely poor refugees, who are just looking for a landing spot.
Had the EO originally been written that way, I doubt many (if any) would have been opposed to it. Can't imagine why they would.
With that said, I stand by my original post that there is no need for a travel ban and the vetting should already have been evaluated and fixed (if issues were found during the evaluation).
Similar threads
