SC upholds Travel Ban 5-4

[B-Man]

Also:

 

SCOTUS:...................... Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Turning Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Into ‘Abortion Referral Agencies.’

 

 

 

.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The second time you post this, I'll tell you it's a good comeback.

 

Mea culpa.  I’ve failed to allocate adequate attention to your responses. I’ll do better.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Mea culpa.  I’ve failed to allocate adequate attention to your responses. I’ll do better.

 

Nice try...but it was better the first time.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

... Same old fight:  republicans vs monarchists.

 

don't you mean, Dumbocrats and Repugnicans?

[keepthefaith]

Dumbass Trump should have included countries like Guatemala, Honduras, etc.... in the ban.  There must be some national security threat that could be cited. 

 

Maybe now emboldened by today's decision he will.  That should put the left into orbit.

Edited June 26, 2018 by keepthefaith

[TakeYouToTasker]

50 minutes ago, Foxx said:

don't you mean, Dumbocrats and Repugnicans?

 

No.  I mean republicans and monarchists.

 

 

Which is why I said republicans and monarchists.

[Foxx]

well played. however, it really is just a dog and pony show full of nothing more than bread and circuses.

must keep the (m)asses docile you know.....

[Cinga]

If Sotamoyers dissent only speaks of the ills of Trump, with no mention of the law or Constitution, can we just begin impeachment hearings tomorrow please?

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that something legally so cut and dry can have even a single dissent if they actually you know, READ THE FU*^&%* LAW! 

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, Cinga said:

If Sotamoyers dissent only speaks of the ills of Trump, with no mention of the law or Constitution, can we just begin impeachment hearings tomorrow please?

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that something legally so cut and dry can have even a single dissent if they actually you know, READ THE FU*^&%* LAW! 

 

They see the law as whatever their feelings are at the time with no concern for anything else

 

 

[DC Tom]

42 minutes ago, Cinga said:

If Sotamoyers dissent only speaks of the ills of Trump, with no mention of the law or Constitution, can we just begin impeachment hearings tomorrow please?

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that something legally so cut and dry can have even a single dissent if they actually you know, READ THE FU*^&%* LAW! 

 

Her dissent refers back to previous court decisions, and she makes reference to the Establishment Clause and First Amendment in the typical vague hand-waving fashion of people who parrot slogans without a shred of thought behind it.  But as I recall, there wasn't one other reference to anything resembling law.

 

The majority opinion, on the other hand, is basically "USC 8 1182(f) says the President can do almost anything he wants in this case, so suck it." 

 

It also blows the dissent out of the water by pointing out that, since the issuance of the ban, three countries have been removed from the ban (Iraq, Sudan, and Chad) because they've addressed the structural concerns regarding information sharing and vetting, and Libya continues to work in that direction.  Tough to say it's purely racially motivated when structural issues at the heart of the decision are being addressed and the ban lifted as a result.

 

It's amazing what you can learn when you read the primary source.

[B-Man]

Worth repeating:

 

Longstanding, unquestioned Presidential authority under Article II does not simply cease to operate,

 

just because the people elected Some Dumb Idiot to be President.

 

That 4 Supreme Court justices disagreed is something that should make people (who see beyond affairs of the moment)........ tremble.

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., reading for the majority on Tuesday morning, spoke clinically. Justice Stephen G. Breyer followed, working his way through his dissent mildly and analytically.

Then it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s turn.

Steely and unwavering, she began: “The United States of America is a nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment.”

The crowded courthouse fell silent.

In upholding President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, Justice Sotomayor continued, the Supreme Court had failed to “safeguard that fundamental principle.”

For the next 20 minutes, she remained resolute as she delivered an extraordinarily scorching dissent, skewering the court’s decision and condemning the ban as “harrowing” and “motivated by hostility and animus toward the Muslim faith.”

 

 

The remarkable dissent was delivered by a woman who has championed her own upbringing as an example of the American dream. Justice Sotomayor, whose parents moved from Puerto Rico during World War II, was raised in a housing project in the Bronx. Her father did not speak English and her first language was Spanish. But determined to become a judge, she would go on to attend Princeton University and become the Supreme Court’s first Latina justice.

Justice Sotomayor once said that “personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” She again drew upon that idea in her dissent on Tuesday, in which she accused the majority of “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

That was the crux of the Justice Sotomayor’s damning conclusion: The president’s ban is “inexplicable by anything but animus,” and to argue anything else is to divorce oneself from the facts.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[row_33]

Waking up and only Tibs blocked for new replies is like Jack Barry calliing

 

joker... joker and.... the devil...

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

And Sotomayor's dissent had absolutely NOTHING to do with the law.  That article is accurate, and damning.  Her extraordinary dissent was extraordinary in its complete ignorance.

[row_33]

30 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And Sotomayor's dissent had absolutely NOTHING to do with the law.  That article is accurate, and damning.  Her extraordinary dissent was extraordinary in its complete ignorance.

 

Old crone horse sense

 

 

[B-Man]

Very Good read..................

 

In Travel Ban Ruling, Justice Thomas Takes Aim At Nationwide Injunctions

'Nationwide injunctions mean that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can freeze a law or regulation throughout the country — regardless of whether the other 599 disagree.'

 

By Ben Weingarten

 

Justice Clarence Thomas opened the door to future Supreme Court sparring over an issue with profound legal and practical implications that go well beyond Trump’s travel ban in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii.

 

Thomas — the underappreciated revolutionary of the Supreme Court, in the sense of his work to restore founding principles in the law through philosophically consistent originalist jurisprudence – called into question the very idea that a single federal judge in Hawaii can impose an injunction barring a presidential executive order against anyone nationwide in the first place.

 

If his words are any indication, the practice of issuing “universal injunctions” may face the scrutiny of the highest court in the land. He writes:

Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone…have become increasingly common. District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality. [Emphasis mine]

Universal injunctions have been a particularly powerful weapon for “The Resistance.” As Attorney General Jeff Sessions noted in a March 2018 editorial, 22 such injunctions have been leveled against the Trump administration on politically charged issues ranging from DACA, to sanctuary cities, to transgender military service. Sessions asks:

[W]hy does this matter to non-lawyers? This is a question of who gets to decide the policy questions facing America: Is it our elected representatives, our elected president, or unelected lifetime-appointed federal judges?

 

Nationwide injunctions mean that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can freeze a law or regulation throughout the country — regardless of whether the other 599 disagree. That’s a threat to the proper functioning of the federal government for a number of reasons.

Indeed. Universal injunctions represent a rolling constitutional crisis in terms of fundamental questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. They also illustrate a derelict legislative branch that prefers to see critical issues punted to courts rather than representing the wishes of their constituents by passing laws.

 

As Thomas chronicles, universal injunctions predate the Trump administration. 

 

 

Much more at the Link: