Travel Ban

[Skjellyfetti]

They're not applying it to non-immigrant visas.

And programs like the Diversity Visa program are under the exceptions specifically listed.

Trump's Muslim Ban isn't.

But, maybe the government should have hired you or BDK to argue their case for them... cause they keep losing.

[BDKJMU]

I'd be interested to hear what our resident immigration expert or our attorneys on here have to say on this...

Well, we've had how many courts rule on this so far? But, I guess they're all just liberals off on an island in the Pacific somewhere.

From the 4th Circuit's ruling today:

Because Section 2(c) [of the EO] has the practical effect of halting the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality, the court reasoned, it is inconsistent with 1152(a)1(A) [what I linked]. To that extent - and contrary to the Government's position - the court found that Presidential authority under 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1) [what BDK linked] is cabined by the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance.

But, I agree that SCOTUS should probably hear this at some point. Probably not until after August at the earliest, though. It will be awhile.

Dershwitz, one of the most known legal minds in the US, certainly no conservative or Trump fan, laid out why he thinks Trumps temporary ban will be upheld by SCOTUS (edit- if SCOTUS ends up hearing it).
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/i ... -not-legal

[Skjellyfetti]

ok

[CID1990]

They're not applying it to non-immigrant visas.

And programs like the Diversity Visa program are under the exceptions specifically listed.

Trump's Muslim Ban isn't.

But, maybe the government should have hired you or BDK to argue their case for them... cause they keep losing.

Jelly- the ban is absolutely about NIVs

The "extreme vetting" they were talking about is now and has long been done on IVs.

We issue something like 50 times the number of NIVs than IVs. If all they were talking about was IVs then I'd know it.

Let's not forget that ALL of the 9/11 attackers were on NIVs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

I wasn't saying the ban was about only non-immigrant visas. I was saying that section of their ruling was about how it applied specifically to immigrant visas.

The ban is for all entry across the board (well, almost - exceptions for diplomats and UN, etc). I mean, their first version even included permanent residents - not clear if that was intentional or due to incompetence.

Keeping it limited to only NIVs might be a good suggestion for their third try, though.

[CID1990]

I wasn't saying the ban was about only non-immigrant visas. I was saying that section of their ruling was about how it applied specifically to immigrant visas.

The ban is for all entry across the board (well, almost - exceptions for diplomats and UN, etc). I mean, their first version even included permanent residents - not clear if that was intentional or due to incompetence.

Keeping it limited to only NIVs might be a good suggestion for their third try, though.

First off, that wouldn't matter-

It is no coincidence that these rulings have come from the most liberal districts in the Federal justice system. It is because they were shopped.

Now if you want to talk about the ban itself- and whether it is needed - then you might find that we have common ground.

But in legal terms, I agree that the President is granted broad powers in terms of who is and isn't allowed into the country. Court precedence supports this. The ban is political, and so are the injunctions (bad). The SCOTUS will reverse them if precedent is still alive.

I agree that the ban is window dressing, but I disagree with the courts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Read the Niemeyer dissent. The majority turns precedent on its head for political reasons.

[GannonFan]

Read the Niemeyer dissent. The majority turns precedent on its head for political reasons.

Yeah, the ruling and the dissent are pretty simplistic opinions (not in a bad way, just that they aren't complicated) - the ruling against the ban is because Trump said in the campaign that he wants to ban Muslims and the dissent is if you just read the EO and never heard things said during the campaign then the EO would be perfectly valid. Will be an interesting ruling from SCOTUS if they take it - like I said, if it wasn't Trump issuing the EO then the EO would probably be okay. I don't like Trump and I don't like the travel ban but I'm finding it hard to square that with what appears to be, as the dissent said, a perfectly constitutional EO.

[Skjellyfetti]

Self sabotage.

[CID1990]

At this point the main justification for the "pause" has passed - those "extreme vetting" procedures are already rolling out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

At this point the main justification for the "pause" has passed - those "extreme vetting" procedures are already rolling out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, now it's almost just about precedent and what's allowed and what's not allowed. The ban was never anything more than cosmetic anyway - no one would really say it was an example of good policy. On the contrary, it was more style and tone than anything tangible. Typical Trump at that. But now the Courts have stepped into it and in the Circuit Court ruling pretty much dismissed what was written and judged it almost solely on what they thought Trump was trying to do, even if he wasn't actually doing it. It's a weird spot to be and an even more awkward position for the SCOTUS to try to walk back the Circuit Court ruling.

[Chizzang]

At no point is the court required to separate:
Blabber mouth crazy Trump from President Trump

[GannonFan]

At no point is the court required to separate:
Blabber mouth crazy Trump from President Trump

But that will be what they will decide - that's what the majority in the Circuit Court was saying (they extensively mined his campaign comments) and that's what the dissent was all about (the actual executive order, as it was written and just what was written). There's a precedent that could change if the courts are going to decide that what is written is no longer what they're judging. Even in an age like we live in today with who's in the White House (but not on weekends).

[HI54UNI]

The decision was based on Trump's statements as a candidate. When this reaches SCOTUS does Ginsburg have to recuse herself based on her comments about Trump?

[Chizzang]

At no point is the court required to separate:
Blabber mouth crazy Trump from President Trump

But that will be what they will decide - that's what the majority in the Circuit Court was saying (they extensively mined his campaign comments) and that's what the dissent was all about (the actual executive order, as it was written and just what was written). There's a precedent that could change if the courts are going to decide that what is written is no longer what they're judging. Even in an age like we live in today with who's in the White House (but not on weekends).

Intent...

Man tweets:
"I'm going to Kill you if I get my hands on you"

Later writes:
I didn't mean Kill I meant stern talking to

The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous
particularly where written ambiguity is intentional

[BDKJMU]

At no point is the court required to separate:
Blabber mouth crazy Trump from President Trump

But that will be what they will decide - that's what the majority in the Circuit Court was saying (they extensively mined his campaign comments) and that's what the dissent was all about (the actual executive order, as it was written and just what was written). There's a precedent that could change if the courts are going to decide that what is written is no longer what they're judging. Even in an age like we live in today with who's in the White House (but not on weekends).

Yep, it doesn't matter if the time period for utilizing the ban has expired. SCOTUS needs to rule on whether "A" POTUS has the authority to issue such a ban as it was written. Period.

[GannonFan]

*bump*

SCOTUS steps in and allows the travel ban to go into effect, with a tweak that people with bona fide connections already to the US (students, family members, and people with job connections) are still allowed in. But anyone else from those countries, as well as the refugee limitations, are now allowed. In addition, the Court will hear the case in the next session.

Gotta think that the Court is going to side with Trump on this, given this lifting of injunctions from lower courts and agreeing to hear the case in the fall (note, by then the actual ban will be over, but you have to think the Court wants to re-establish and clarify the role of the Executive in terms of making decisions regarding immigration as granted by Congress). It may be a poorly conceived ban, it may be a ban that ultimately does little to keep America safer, and it may be a ban that never should've been inacted (and IMO it's all of those things) but that doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40409490

[Skjellyfetti]

6-3 vote.

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were the dissenters arguing that the full travel ban should be reinstated.

[Col Hogan]

So much for those "Constitutional" experts at the 9th Circuit Court...

All nine justices were for reinstatement...six voted to reinstate most right now and wait for the October hearings...

I would wager that the entire ban will be reinstated come the late fall...I know, it won't be necessary by then, but for precedent...

[BDKJMU]

All those libtard state Attorney Generals (WA, HI, etc) that had sued to overturn the ban through the liberal 9th circuit can suck it..

[93henfan]

All those libtard state Attorney Generals (WA, HI, etc) that had sued to overturn the ban through the liberal 9th circuit can suck it..

What are you using to get the splooge off your monitor?

Spoiler: show

Invisible Glass for me!

[CID1990]

All those libtard state Attorney Generals (WA, HI, etc) that had sued to overturn the ban through the liberal 9th circuit can suck it..

The courts were shopped for those decisions

If you think those state's attorneys general brought those suits on their own volition.... (sure they didn't need convincing, but still)

[Skjellyfetti]

The cases weren't only brought by states' attorney generals. There were also dozens of private suits.

The one that SCOTUS will be hearing is a private suit that the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA upheld.

[CID1990]

The cases weren't only brought by states' attorney generals. There were also dozens of private suits.

The one that SCOTUS will be hearing is a private suit that the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA upheld.

Try to keep up Jelly

I realize you're reduced to picking nits at this point, but if you'll look back and read, you'll see that I am talking about the Seattle and Hawaii cases which were directly referred to.

Brought by the Washington and Hawaii state attorneys general, respectively.

[Skjellyfetti]

And, those have nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling... but, sorry to interrupt the circle jerk. Jerk away.