9-0 decision.

 

Speaks volumes.

The original ban was a 90-day ban which was needed to do vetting.

 

We're past 90 days. How does that, if in any way, factor into the SCOTUS decision?

 

It may, but in the opinion it also said that the Predident was within his power to do this. That and a future formal ruling in favor of the ban make it a win for the administration and also sets precedent for possible future travel restrictions. Wonder if the 9th circuit ever gets tired of being reversed?

It may, but in the opinion it also said that the Predident was within his power to do this. That and a future formal ruling in favor of the ban make it a win for the administration and also sets precedent for possible future travel restrictions. Wonder if the 9th circuit ever gets tired of being reversed?

 

Evidently not with their percentage of being wrong.

Thoughts on the travel ban:

 

As was already mentioned, the ban was justified as a temporary measure to give immigration authorities time to evaluate their processes.

 

Here’s the language from the EO:

 

“I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries […] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

 

(There’s similarly worded language around a “temporary” suspension of refugees for 120 days.)

 

Since that “brief period” has come and gone, what purpose does the travel ban now serve? Is its justification now moot since the government has had its 90 days? That’s a crucial question, as critics have claimed the ban was merely symbolic of the president’s stance toward Muslims with little national security justification. In fact, the SCOTUS was explicit in its per curiam opinion that the government better have an answer for that question during the hearing in October.

 

“In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following question: “Whether the challenges to §2© became moot on June 14, 2017.”

 

As to more substantive criticisms of the ban, while the opinion stayed the lower court injunctions, the SCOTUS neutered much of the ban. Anyone with a “relationship with a person or entity in the United States” is exempt from the ban. That would cover a marriage, a university student, or an employer-employee relationship. The ban is now something like a “tourism ban,” but then I wonder if a “relationship” with a tour company or travel agent would be sufficient for exemption (and the dissenting opinion, in part, addresses this sort of confusion).

 

But had these exemptions been included in the initial ban, and had the ban been competently rolled out with timely warning, it’s unlikely it would have reached this point. The administration likely would have had its 90/120 days to “assess” its vetting, assuming that was ever their goal, and it would have mostly been forgotten about.

 

Instead, we witnessed a haphazardly put together policy rashly implemented in a way that blindsided half the administration, all while giving the media content of families being torn apart at the airport and CEOs lamenting how the government was treating their employees. And to underscore the pointless and symbolic nature of the ban, as the controversy raged the government struggled to articulate any compelling national security reason for the ban other than the circular logic that this was a matter of national security.

 

The SCOTUS may eventually uphold the ban - depending on how seriously they take the president’s statements on its religious nature - as the executive has broad authority over immigration. But the path the policy has taken to get to this point underscores just how poorly conceived it was.

Supreme Court Order Hints at Slam Dunk Win for Trump’s Travel Ban | Law News

 

As I stated months ago the 4th and 9th rulings were not based in law but were pure political rulings. To get a stay at a 9-0 vote speaks volumes.

Thoughts on the travel ban:

 

As was already mentioned, the ban was justified as a temporary measure to give immigration authorities time to evaluate their processes.

 

Here’s the language from the EO:

 

“I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries […] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

 

(There’s similarly worded language around a “temporary” suspension of refugees for 120 days.)

 

Since that “brief period” has come and gone, what purpose does the travel ban now serve? Is its justification now moot since the government has had its 90 days? That’s a crucial question, as critics have claimed the ban was merely symbolic of the president’s stance toward Muslims with little national security justification. In fact, the SCOTUS was explicit in its per curiam opinion that the government better have an answer for that question during the hearing in October.

 

“In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following question: “Whether the challenges to §2© became moot on June 14, 2017.”

 

As to more substantive criticisms of the ban, while the opinion stayed the lower court injunctions, the SCOTUS neutered much of the ban. Anyone with a “relationship with a person or entity in the United States” is exempt from the ban. That would cover a marriage, a university student, or an employer-employee relationship. The ban is now something like a “tourism ban,” but then I wonder if a “relationship” with a tour company or travel agent would be sufficient for exemption (and the dissenting opinion, in part, addresses this sort of confusion).

 

But had these exemptions been included in the initial ban, and had the ban been competently rolled out with timely warning, it’s unlikely it would have reached this point. The administration likely would have had its 90/120 days to “assess” its vetting, assuming that was ever their goal, and it would have mostly been forgotten about.

 

Instead, we witnessed a haphazardly put together policy rashly implemented in a way that blindsided half the administration, all while giving the media content of families being torn apart at the airport and CEOs lamenting how the government was treating their employees. And to underscore the pointless and symbolic nature of the ban, as the controversy raged the government struggled to articulate any compelling national security reason for the ban other than the circular logic that this was a matter of national security.

 

The SCOTUS may eventually uphold the ban - depending on how seriously they take the president’s statements on its religious nature - as the executive has broad authority over immigration. But the path the policy has taken to get to this point underscores just how poorly conceived it was.

 

They issued a 9-0 stay which is very rare. Again as I just posted the 4th and 9th were being political and ignoring the rule of law.

9-0 decision.

 

Speaks volumes.

 

Supreme Court Order Hints at Slam Dunk Win for Trump’s Travel Ban | Law News

 

As I stated months ago the 4th and 9th rulings were not based in law but were pure political rulings. To get a stay at a 9-0 vote speaks volumes.

 

Agree, the 9 to 0 Vote speaks volumes about the sad state of our politically biased judicial system.

 

The recent 8 to 0 decision on Trademarks is another example of how far away from the law the lower courts have strayed.

I think you all are taking creative license with the "9-0" thing (there was no vote listed). One could just as easily note the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts' injunction on applying the ban to the plaintiffs and people with a connection to the United States (in fact, that's exactly what happened). That's why there were three dissenters - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch - who said they would have allowed the entire ban to go into effect until the it was reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

Thomas wrote "It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad."

 

At any rate, would anyone be willing to take me up on a friendly wager that when the decision in this case is handed down, and votes are published, that it will be 9-0? I bet that it will not be...

I think you all are taking creative license with the "9-0" thing (there was no vote listed). One could just as easily note the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts' injunction on applying the ban to the plaintiffs and people with a connection to the United States (in fact, that's exactly what happened). That's why there were three dissenters - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch - who said they would have allowed the entire ban to go into effect until the it was reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

Thomas wrote "It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad."

 

At any rate, would anyone be willing to take me up on a friendly wager that when the decision in this case is handed down, and votes are published, that it will be 9-0? I bet that it will not be...

 

It will speak volumes.

I think you all are taking creative license with the "9-0" thing (there was no vote listed). One could just as easily note the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts' injunction on applying the ban to the plaintiffs and people with a connection to the United States (in fact, that's exactly what happened). That's why there were three dissenters - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch - who said they would have allowed the entire ban to go into effect until the it was reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

Thomas wrote "It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad."

 

At any rate, would anyone be willing to take me up on a friendly wager that when the decision in this case is handed down, and votes are published, that it will be 9-0? I bet that it will not be...

 

President Trump is reporting it was 9 to 0, here is his tweet:

 

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

I think you all are taking creative license with the "9-0" thing (there was no vote listed). One could just as easily note the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts' injunction on applying the ban to the plaintiffs and people with a connection to the United States (in fact, that's exactly what happened). That's why there were three dissenters - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch - who said they would have allowed the entire ban to go into effect until the it was reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

Thomas wrote "It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad."

 

At any rate, would anyone be willing to take me up on a friendly wager that when the decision in this case is handed down, and votes are published, that it will be 9-0? I bet that it will not be...

 

Most reporting agencies, including CBS, said the vote was unanimous or 9-0.

It will speak volumes.

 

Based purely on constitutionality, without politics, it will be 9-0.

President Trump is reporting it was 9 to 0, here is his tweet:

 

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

 

I understand that's how the White House has chosen to spin it, but you don't have to be the president to read the opinions. And there are many impolite things I could say about the president's musings, but suffice to say I don't consider them a source for accuracy. :lol2:

It will speak volumes.

5-4 will be the same volume level.

I think you all are taking creative license with the "9-0" thing (there was no vote listed). One could just as easily note the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts' injunction on applying the ban to the plaintiffs and people with a connection to the United States (in fact, that's exactly what happened). That's why there were three dissenters - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch - who said they would have allowed the entire ban to go into effect until the it was reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

Thomas wrote "It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad."

 

At any rate, would anyone be willing to take me up on a friendly wager that when the decision in this case is handed down, and votes are published, that it will be 9-0? I bet that it will not be...

5-4 would be the same as 9-0, correct?