June 28, 20179 yr 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 would argue you are underselling the point if you read the article I posted. The stay at this level is very rare and not one judge dissented. I won't accept the spin on this. Both Liberal and Conservative judges are correcting decisions on lower courts obvious political decisions. You can't be literate person who understands current American law and say the 4th and 9th opinions weren't political. You can dislike the law but that is what Congress is for.
June 28, 20179 yr Author 5-4 would be the same as 9-0, correct? 5-4 is a loss and a big thumbs down just like a unanimous 9-0 decision. Both are a loss. Just like all the recent elections. Losers. Whats that count now 5-0?
June 28, 20179 yr 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: I don't understand what you are arguing it is 100% fact the stay was granted on a 9-0 decision?
June 30, 20179 yr The administration has put a tight definition on what qualifies as "close family." Grandparents, for example, do not qualify. Hawaii is considering taking the new interpretation to court.
June 30, 20179 yr I don't understand what you are arguing it is 100% fact the stay was granted on a 9-0 decision? Depends on what one thinks the vote said. If one believes the 9-0 vote said the travel ban , as it existed prior to this ruling, should never have been stayed then that would be misleading. If one believes the 9-0 vote was saying the issue of POTUS authority should be reviewed AS LONG AS the ban is modified then that would be accurate.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.